You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

skeptical_lurker comments on Non-standard politics - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 24 October 2014 03:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (231)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: the-citizen 26 October 2014 05:00:03AM 1 point [-]

I think you're right that the relationship is complex and you probably wouldn't want to optimise just around empathy/altruism. In particular highly empathetic people can sometimes run into problems with cognitive bias around large abstract concepts or numbers. I'm guessing there might be a "sweet spot" for leaders of having enough empathy to want to do the right thing, but not to be overwhelmed by emotion and unable to make difficult decisions.

I'm very interested in possiblities for that sort of test, but it could be tough finding something that can't be gamed. Perhaps some research looking at a range of candidates for (perhaps multivariant) correlations with morally good and effective leadership decisions needs to be done. Actually... surely someone would have done that... though I haven't run into it so far...

Comment author: skeptical_lurker 26 October 2014 06:56:46AM 1 point [-]

A good idea might be to have a mix of cognitive styles so that you can approach a problem from different sides. Of course, you need to be able to decide between these different viewpoints, otherwise you just create arguements.

Perhaps some research looking at a range of candidates for (perhaps multivariant) correlations with morally good and effective leadership decisions needs to be done.

The first problem is to identify morally good and effective leadership decisions. This isn't easy.

Comment author: the-citizen 27 October 2014 11:59:03AM *  0 points [-]

Yes that's a fairly good point and I don't know any easy way around it either. Looking in the world of business, government, politics etc etc. would be a matter of fairly subjective ideas about moral goodness.

I suppose you could formulate an approach along the lines of experimental psychology, where you could deliberately design experiments with clearcut good/bad group outcomes. So get a bunch of people to be leaders in an experiment where their goal was to minimise their group members (including themselves) getting hit in the head with something unpleasant, build-in some selfish vs unselfish options, and then look at the correlations between leadership behaviours and oxytocin or whatever else you wanted to measure as an input. With a robust range of experiments you could perhaps develop something broadly useful.