4 ms·

yes I am biased if bias means not weighting all people equally on moral grounds. I am not sure why I should. If someone did that I think it's interesting what c

yes I am biased if bias means not weighting all people equally on moral grounds. I am not sure why I should. If someone did that I think it's interesting what conclusions they might draw about how to spend their money or what job they might choose. It destroys much of the point of having a family. You would have to weight random strangers with equal status to your own children. So the needs of random strangers would almost always outweigh the needs of your children assuming they are healthy and you live comfortably. It would not surprise me if EA people thought families were immoral though. I don't think assuming an equal weighting is being unbiased though. It could be a result of a political bias. As I said I don't know why people should assume this. The digital era of social media and digital banking enable this viewpoint so I think that is another angle to discuss regarding how to weigh these issues. But the specific bias I was accusing some in the EA community of having is virtue signalling as having superior ethics, morals, and intelligence. I think that is a real bias. I don't want to accuse everyone in the community of not being altruistic but claiming to be an effective altruist could certainly be a career enhancer if you are an ethicist. Also, my experience with this community is some of them come off as misanthropes. A misanthrope might be motivated to argue elaborate contrarian viewpoints in order to cause harm or annoy people.

naasking 4y ago
> If someone did that I think it's interesting what conclusions they might draw about how to spend their money or what job they might choose. It destroys much of the point of having a family. I'm not sure they would. They might adopt instead of having their own kids, for instance. > So the needs of random strangers would almost always outweigh the needs of your children assuming they are healthy and you live comfortably. Not necessarily. Divide and conquer is one of our most effective problem solving strategies, and family units fall under this umbrella of dividing the work of raising the next generation. > But the specific bias I was accusing some in the EA community of having is virtue signalling as having superior ethics, morals, and intelligence. I think that is a real bias. It could be. It's also possible that they are more ethical and intelligent though. Not in the sense that becoming an EA makes you more intelligent, but in the sense that maybe EA attracts more intelligent and ethical people. This self-sorting effect would diminish as EA spreads in popularity of course. Ultimately, whether they are more ethical or intelligent is an empirical claim that you can validate, and while it's reasonable to think it's implausible for it to be true, that's not a proof that it isn't true.

naasking 4y ago

> If someone did that I think it's interesting what conclusions they might draw about how to spend their money or what job they might choose. It destroys much of the point of having a family. I'm not sure they would. They might adopt instead of having their own kids, for instance. > So the needs of random strangers would almost always outweigh the needs of your children assuming they are healthy and you live comfortably. Not necessarily. Divide and conquer is one of our most effective problem solving strategies, and family units fall under this umbrella of dividing the work of raising the next generation. > But the specific bias I was accusing some in the EA community of having is virtue signalling as having superior ethics, morals, and intelligence. I think that is a real bias. It could be. It's also possible that they are more ethical and intelligent though. Not in the sense that becoming an EA makes you more intelligent, but in the sense that maybe EA attracts more intelligent and ethical people. This self-sorting effect would diminish as EA spreads in popularity of course. Ultimately, whether they are more ethical or intelligent is an empirical claim that you can validate, and while it's reasonable to think it's implausible for it to be true, that's not a proof that it isn't true.