A Plan to Improve the World: 20 Rational Debate Advocates

[Jarrod]

@Elliot

I’d like to debate anyone who would have a long and organized enough debate that it’s suitable to make trees and videos. Or if they have a large audience that’s fine too.

Hopefully in the course of promoting you and recruiting advocates we can find you someone who is willing to have a suitably long & organized debate and/or who has a large audience.

@Elliot

Preferred topics include decisive vs. indecisive arguments, Popper, Goldratt, debate methodology and Paths Forward

Maybe at some point I’ll try search to see if there’s any people (like academics) who write about that kinda stuff & who might be interested in talking with you & contact them. (That said, I feel like even if I do find someone, they’re probably unlikely to want to do a very long & very organized debate. But it could be worth a try nonetheless. Even just one good person could be worth it.)

@Elliot

but a ton of topics are fine (not MAGA, but underlying issues like political philosophy, economics or feminism are fine).

Ditto. But lower priority tho since they’re not your preferred topics.

---

Regarding Paths Forward, you wrote:

@Elliot

In my experience, intellectuals with fans don’t want it, e.g. David Deutsch, Robin Hanson, Aubrey de Gray, Alex Epstein.

Do you think the biggest reason they don’t want Paths Forward is:

1. They don’t want criticism

   @Elliot

   They don’t want to face such criticisms or have their fans see those criticisms.

2. They regard Paths Forward as a burden and think it’d take too long? (Though that’s largely solved by your idea of having a less demanding written debate policy (like you mentioned))

3. They’re not aware of Paths Forward? (Though most of the specific examples you mentioned I think are aware of it)

4. Something else?

If #1, I wonder how that could be solved? Would a world in which admitting your mistakes and learning from criticism were high status solve it? Or is status (and related stuff like feelings of embarrassment) even the issue? Is there some other reason(s) they don’t want to face criticism?

@Elliot

People without fans sometimes like it […] because they imagine it being used on their enemies

Yeah, I guess I’m guilty of this in the sense of imagining that if only Paths Forward were widespread, radical life extension would get way more resources. (I.e., imagining that people (or “enemies”, to use your word) who want resources devoted to stuff I regard as less important would lose.)

@Elliot

But if I then try to use it on them, I’ve found they don’t want to do it.

That makes me wonder: do I want it applied to myself? Idk if I want to open myself up to unbounded criticism. Atm I think I’m much more like thin-skinned intellectuals who feel embarrassed by criticism. I’d have to work very hard on rewriring my brain (so to speak) to fully realize in all cases that criticism is good and something I should be eager to exploit/capitalize on/profit from/learn from/use to get better. Reminds me of Do You Really, Actually, Genuinely Want Unbounded Discussion? (Also, Breaking People seems relevant.) But doing that would be a big project and require lots of practice to consistently change how I feel about unbounded criticism. I could still try it though.

Incidentally, perhaps that answers my initial question: assuming public intellectuals are psychologically similar to me, I guess being pained by criticism might be the biggest reason they don’t want Paths Forward (assuming they’re aware of Paths Forward). I suppose that’s something both I and they need to work on. But, then again, I imagine those public intellectuals might also imagine that Paths Forward would be a huge hassle that’s not worth it (despite your idea of having a less demanding written debate policy). So idk.