_This is my qualitative review of a 9 month period from June 2021 until February 2022_. _This period was self-funded from June-September. October-February was funded by a grant from the Effective Altruism Long Term Fund._ _This is an early draft. Expect rough edges and some missing parts._ --- Version: 0.1.0 Last updated: 2022-04-01 --- P32 was a period of independent study, focussed on developing my [[§Big picture]] worldview. I wanted to develop my thoughts on various topics, and generate a more robust and coherent set of convictions to orient and motivate my work over the next years. In the review that follows, I will: 1. Narrate a couple of the more important "worldview" updates that ocurred during this period. 2. List some legible outputs 3. Reflect on issues and mistakes during the period 4. Reflect on my focus for 2022Q2, and the rest of 2022. ## Overview Looking back, this time seems naturally split into three distinct periods. The period June - October 2021 was fertile: - [[02021 Amble 1 – Written review]] - [[02021 Amble 2 – Written review]] - [[02021 Amble 3 – Written review]] November to December was ok: - [[02021 Amble 4 – Written review]] January to February was bad: - [[02022 Amble 1 – Written review]] Overall, I'd give the period a 6 or 7 out of 10—a high rate of learning initially, with some satisfying outputs. Then I drove into a ditch. ## 1. Worldview updates _I've had to cut this section in order to get the first draft out today. For now, I direct the would-be reader to my amble reviews, linked above._ I will publish a handful of blog posts over the next few weeks that'll make up the bulk of this section. They'll be listed below. - [Reading Robin Hanson](https://sun.pjh.is/reading-robin-hanson) - [Pragmatism, evolution & moral philosophy](https://sun.pjh.is/pragmatism-evolution-and-moral-philosophy) - Richard Rorty on Bernard Williams - Utilitarianism - Impartial concern - Joe Carlsmith on anti-realism - Intuitionists vs Vervaeke on Rationality - Metaethics - Flavours of longtermism %% ## Reading Robin Hanson --- Having the most true beliefs, or minimising error, may not be Méditations on Moloch made me think of parts of central London, where the retail units are profit optimised to the point of "subsistence" conditions. And of many of the new build houses I see popping up. Luxury taste—can you afford it? Luxury taste—without it, ugliness. Be careful with embracing efficiency as a value—if you don't know what you are optimising for, or if you think you might be optimising for too narrow a set of values. Recognising this dynamic, we might be able to co-ordinate to artificially limit population growth, and preserve conditions of abundance. This may work, but every deviation from survival maximisation becomes, over the long-run, an opportunity for another group to exploit. ### Pragmatism Pragmatists say we should understand truth primarily as about **what is deserving of belief**, given our aims. Beliefs are thought of as dispositions to act and anticipate. A belief is true (deserving of belief) if it leads to succesful actions or anticipations, and that happens when there is right relation between the ends of the believer and the nature of the world. The key claim is that we shouldn't try to think of beliefs as true or false (good or bad) independently of particular agency, a particular set of ends. > The insight at the heart of pragmatism is that any domain of inquiry—science, ethics, mathematics, logic, aesthetics—is human inquiry, and that our philosophical accounts of truth and knowledge must start with that fact. What does this mean for moral philosophy? It means we shoud see ourselves as seeking moral beliefs that are deserving of belief, where "desert" means "works well for our purposes". Insofar as moral philosophy involves critically evaluating our purposes, rather than taking them as a given, what does the pragmatist have to say? You can evaluate parts of the bundle in terms of other parts. But you can't step out of the whole bundle, to a view from nowhere. Themes from this period: pragmatism, evolutionary theory, naturalism. Maybe LT bundle will be adaptive, maybe it won't. We'll just have to see. I think the most important things are: I thought about pragmatism and metaphilosophy a bit, and recast my relationship with hedonistic utilitarianism. On the one hand, I am more impressed by it at as a useful theory than I have ever been. On the other, I see it as just one useful theory, and I don't think we have reason to reshape all our cares and intuitions to match it. I'd like to see us go some of the way in that direction, but not all. I usually want to know: what's the utilitarian take on this question? But it doesn't always end there. Impartiality with a grain of salt. {{Maybe this should be a series of blog posts, written during this month}} ### Metaphilosophy: pragmatism & evolutionary theory At least since I read _The Moral Animal_, I've thought that a lot of philosophers misunderstand the nature of their intuitions. Not just intuitions about particular cases, but intuitions about basic principles. If thinking this way did not work—if it was not adaptive—this way of thinking will not last long [^1]. Think of packages of beliefs, not single beliefs. [^1]: Spandrels. [[Pragmatism is what philosophy looks like when you take Darwin seriously]]. That's to say: when you understand yourself, the philosopher, as just another animal in nature trying to get by. We praise moral beliefs as "true" when they work for us—when they help us get by in the world. Pragmatism recasts metaethics: morality is about finding ways to get by, together. Pragmatism suggests a respect for principles of impartiality and maximisation, but no external obligation to follow them. ### Rationality John Vervaeke has been hammering away at his story about 4E rationality for a while now. One key idea is that rationality is always evolving, and cannot be thought of independently of the environment. It's not a simple logical faculty we all share an identical copy of—we all have slightly (sometimes very) different versions of it. The process by which we chose what frame to apply to a situation, and how to weigh competing reasons, is very obscure, yet—it's where most of the action is. "Reasoning well" does usually involve avoiding basic logical errors, but there is much more to it than that. Deliberation that's worth the name involves generating many different perspectives. -- Relevance realisation - Pragmatism, naturalism, metaphilosophy - Rationality - Ecological - Froth of uncertainty, yardsticks - Vervaeke rr - Philosophy and self-evident intuitions ### Metaethics, ethics & morality - Metaethics - Non-naturalist moral realism: increased the robustness of my low credence. - Normative ethics - Tyler's framework - EA framework - Utilitarianism - Personal ethics - Revisisted my commitment to the "yes". Still seems good. - Nuanced my relationship to utilitarianism - Conservatism and impartiality - Trust intuitions vs explicit reasoning - Subjectivism (ish) ### Futurism - Futurism - Holden - Robin - Dreamtime argument - economic growth faster than population growth - Bostrom - Transhumanism - Evolutionary theory - Critiques - Fukuyama, Heidegger, etc ### Longtermism - Flavours of longtermism - Cowen vs EA - Global priorities - EA as ideology ### Self-knowledge %% ## 2. Review of outputs My focus this period was learning, not producing concrete outputs. That said, producing concrete outputs is one of the things I did in order to learn. Here are some of the public outputs: - EA Forum: - [An Introduction to Nick Bostrom](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gxLAsWiMvRdcYY7hT/nick-bostrom-an-introduction-early-draft) - [Sam Scheffler: Conservatism, temporal bias and future generations](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NnYrFzXiTWerhTTkK/link-post-sam-scheffler-conservatism-temporal-bias-and) - [Interintellect salon](https://interintellect.com/salon/the-methods-of-ethics-the-future-of-humanity/) on Bostrom, Sidgwick and Scheffler ([YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-uSDlbSXjw); written summary [here](https://twitter.com/interintellect_/status/1418802173241028609)) - [Interintellect salon](https://interintellect.com/salon/high-stakes-fragile-porcelain-is-this-the-most-important-century/) on Holden Karnofsky's [Most Important Century](https://cold-takes.com/most-important-century/) series. - Some writing and roughly 100 study journal quotes at [Sunglasses Ideally](https://sun.pjh.is) - Roughly 250 notes on [notes.pjh.is](https://notes.pjh.is) ### Non-study outputs - [Website](https://josephnoelwalker.com/) for Joseph Walker's podcast - Some advisory work for [80,000 Hours](https://80000hours.org) - Some advisory work for other projects, e.g. helped Gus Docker get a grant for the [Utilitarian podcast](https://utilitarianpodcast.com), product and strategy advice for various startups - [Inbox When Ready](https://inboxwhenready.org) maintenance releases ## 3. Issues and mistakes ### 3.1 Issue: low energy / mood from mid-October – February This was by far the biggest issue I faced during the period. I've learnt how to look after myself, so my ~annual mood cycle is no longer a grave problem. Nonetheless, the three "low" periods of 2019-2022 were worse than those I experienced in 2015-2018. These lows are now clearly the biggest limit on my work output, and the biggest source of trouble in my personal life. I realise it's time I pushed this stuff up the priority list again. I'll spend 10-50 hours working on this before end of 2022Q2, and probably start some new pharmacological experiment(s). ### 3.2 Issue: Low written output I didn't settle into a regular "writing in public" habit that really clicked. I intended to write at least 1 post for the Effective Altruism Forum each amble. I met that goal for the first two ambles, but then I missed it in the third amble, and again thereafter. I wrote a bunch of notes on this website, and did a week or two of systematically writing and publishing in something like Andy Matuschak's "evergreen" format (see e.g. [[Pragmatism]]). I found this somewhat promising but it didn't snowball (yet). I kept a morning writing habit for much of the period. This generated pages and pages of journalling and fragments, but rarely translated into things written up for an audience. I wondered if I was giving myself too much slack by setting input goals (X mins morning writing) rather than output goals (X items posted)—but when I set output goals, I rather consistently missed them. I started a [study journal](https://sun.pjh.is) of writing and quotations, but it quickly became mostly quotations. I tried a week of forcing myself to just post writing instead but it didn't work. Honestly, I think the low written output thing is mostly explained by issue 3.1. That said, I could and probably should have written more in public even from June–October. I think I could do a better job of creating structures that would get me writing in (semi-)public more consistently. With this notes website, and the study journal, I feel like I am pretty close. What is the missing ingredient? I will try adding a more compelling accountability mechanism, ideally a peer or mentor I speak with at least once a week. ### 3.3 Mistake: something about memory and recall When I try to write and talk about this period, I realise that I struggle to recall a lot of the interesting detail of what I "learnt"—I have to go back to check my notes. Things I imagine would help with recall and retention: - Talking about these topics with peers on a ~daily basis - Writing more - A more robust spaced-repetition practice. I know that 3.1 also affects my recall—I'm expecting a bunch of stuff to come back once the fog has passed. ### 3.4 Mistake: Not enough 1-1 time with peers thinking about similar topics From June - October I did reasonably well on this. From November - February I spent much less time than expected speaking with peers who spend a lot of time thinking about these kinds of topics. During this period I considered but rejected several great opportunities to immerse myself in groups of peers in person—in Oxford, in Austin, in the Bahamas, in London. And I did far fewer phone calls and written exchanges than I should have done. Why? Mainly 3.1 again. When opportunities arose, I had low energy and felt like being mostly alone, keeping things simple, waiting for the fog to pass. Honestly, I thought that I would struggle to put sentences together in conversation. The obvious thought here is: just push through, it'll usually be better than you expect. From experience, I'd say that is sometimes the case, but often not. Perhaps the "push through" approach is still worth it on balance, even if it only "works" 1/5 or even 1/10 times, and is very draining most of the rest of the time. Hmm. In October I booked an apartment in Oxford for January - March. This fell through in November due to an issue on the landlords end. I decided to delay my next visit to Oxford to the spring, because my life setup in Penne seemed great and COVID was kicking off again. I notice that this general pattern of "peer avoidance"—repeatedly seeking a certain kind of solitude in my life and work—has been a persistent feature of my decision-making for many years. (The main exception was when I (finally) spent a year in-house at 80,000 Hours in London.) What is behind this, and what should I make of it? Again, I think 3.1 is relevant. #todo %% ### 2.5 Closing thought I think it's time I refreshed my self-image regarding my affective weather cycle. #todo - say more %% ## 4. Closing reflection and thoughts on next steps It is not ideal to draft this review while still stuck in a ditch under the fog of low energy. I expect the fog to lift soon, so I may come back and do a second pass then. If I do, I expect the review will become richer in ideas, and more upbeat. By the end of this year, I'd like to have made a long-term commitment to my next major project. Working backwards from that, I think it's about time to turn my attention to generating and testing ideas for what that might be. That will likely be my focus in 2022Q2. Before then, I will do a pass on mental health stuff, take some holiday, and spend a bit of time improving my online profile. %% ## 4. Focus for 2022Q2 Options: a. Another period focussed on study and writing b. Skill-building c. Short-term useful output (e.g. freelancing / advising) d. Steps towards next big project d. Relationship / personal life-building Items b and c are more similar than they might seem. I am keen to do another push on regular writing habit. So, maybe I can split my time between these goals? ## Notes I do now have the outlines of a recognisably "me" worldview that is more robust, that I am willing to put more weight on. Am I done with this period of study? I am not sure. But for March I will mostly pause my studies, and focus on exploring towards my next "big project". That means: longlisting and shortlisting project ideas, improving my online profile, starting to tell people I'm "on the market", visiting Oxford, (maybe) refreshing my development and design skills. I'll see how that goes, then reflect on what to do in 2022Q2. Themes: - Transhumanism - Pragmatism - Intellectual style - Evolutionary theory - Futurism - Our place in the cosmos - Metaethics - Utilitarianism - Religion, spirituality, situating moral philosophy - Training, thinking skills, patterns - Self-knowledge - Better understanding the views of my epistemic superiors (outside view vs inside view) If I kept studying, things I might want to look at: - More history - More cosmology - Conservatism, transhumanism, epistemology - Empirical knowledge of emerging tech, especially bio. --- How would I summarise the main learnings? - Metaethics - Non-naturalist moral realism: increased the robustness of my low credence. - Normative ethics - Tyler's framework - EA framework - Utilitarianism - Personal ethics - Revisisted my commitment to the "yes". Still seems good. - Nuanced my relationship to utilitarianism - Futurism - Holden - Robin - Dreamtime argument - economic growth faster than population growth - Bostrom - Transhumanism - Evolutionary theory - Critiques - Fukuyama, Heidegger, etc - Pragmatism, naturalism, metaphilosophy - Rationality - Ecological - Froth of uncertainty, yardsticks - Vervaeke rr - Flavours of longtermism - Cowen vs EA - Global priorities - EA as ideology I discovered or read several people for the first time. Notably [[=William James]], [[=Cheryl Misak]], [[=Sharon Hewitt Rawlette]], [[=Henry Sidgwick]], [[=John Vervaeke]]. And I re-read, or went more deeply, many more ([[Highlights]] gives an idea). I thought I would read/re-read a bunch of Nietzsche and perhaps write an EA Forum post about his metaphilosophy/theory of rationality, but I didn't get to it yet. This does basically add up to a worldview that feels more coherent, and that I trust a good deal more than I did before. It's unsafe to make generalisations about the "EA worldview" but if I think about my colleagues at 80,000 Hours, I continue to think that we agree on many, perhaps most of the important questions of priorities. Important areas of lingering disagreement or uncertainty: - Individual duty to maximise impact - Maybe how OK, so this does give me a framework I can put more weight on. And on which I can plausibly base an ambitious 3-10 year commitment. I do believe that (a) people like me should try to ambitiously improve things for the good and (b) they should invest heavily in learning how to recognise and handle uncertainty. The idea of a yardsticks essay or project, as a discussion of how to act given uncertainty. Flash of inspiration. By coincidence, I see [this](https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/02/you-want-to-have-educational-polarization-on-your-side.html). And it makes me think of EA. --- Holding on to particular identities and traditions as one of the key sources of unease about the non-naturalist realist picture. Transhumanism doesn't I have more of a worldview, but uncertainty and a degree of fatalism have become even more central. Pragmatist says you have to try stuff and see if it fits with reality, if it survives selection pressure. --- Mistake: Bahamas, Austin, Oxford.