Ding, Dong, The Witch is a Red Herring

In the last couple days, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died. If you don't know who that is, then feel free to look up who he is. You might be reading this post on a date later than the date it was published, when I share it again, in the wake of the death of another public figure. It doesn't matter to the point I'm about to make that it was Antonin Scalia who just died.

Anyway, there are many Americans who don't like Antonin Scalia because he was one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court while he served, and voted on many cases in many ways they didn't like. Apparently, lots of people on social media and across the blogosphere are celebrating his death because they didn't like him, and others still are chiding them for celebrating someone's death when that is never appropriate. Others still might be using this opportunity as a bully pulpit to push another agenda. I'm seeing the second-order effects of the debate in my own Facebook news feed, as I currently live in Canada rather than the United States, and am thus removed from most of the hubbub. I don't want to one-up anyone. I just want a record of my thoughts to exist so I don't have to think this through or explain it in full again the next time it comes up.

In the wake of the death of Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, many self-identified liberals or progressives were glad at the news of her death. Maybe most people didn't display this sort of gauche, but a proportion of Internet users did. In his essay "I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup", Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex made the following observation about this phenomenon:

The worst reaction I’ve ever gotten to a blog post was when I wrote about the death of Osama bin Laden. I’ve written all sorts of stuff about race and gender and politics and whatever, but that was the worst.

I didn’t come out and say I was happy he was dead. But some people interpreted it that way, and there followed a bunch of comments and emails and Facebook messages about how could I possibly be happy about the death of another human being, even if he was a bad person? Everyone, even Osama, is a human being, and we should never rejoice in the death of a fellow man. One commenter came out and said:

I’m surprised at your reaction. As far as people I casually stalk on the internet (ie, LJ and Facebook), you are the first out of the “intelligent, reasoned and thoughtful” group to be uncomplicatedly happy about this development and not to be, say, disgusted at the reactions of the other 90% or so.

This commenter was right. Of the “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people I knew, the overwhelming emotion was conspicuous disgust that other people could be happy about his death. I hastily backtracked and said I wasn’t happy per se, just surprised and relieved that all of this was finally behind us.

And I genuinely believed that day that I had found some unexpected good in people – that everyone I knew was so humane and compassionate that they were unable to rejoice even in the death of someone who hated them and everything they stood for.

Then a few years later, Margaret Thatcher died. And on my Facebook wall – made of these same “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful” people – the most common response was to quote some portion of the song “Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead”. Another popular response was to link the videos of British people spontaneously throwing parties in the street, with comments like “I wish I was there so I could join in”. From this exact same group of people, not a single expression of disgust or a “c’mon, guys, we’re all human beings here.”

I gently pointed this out at the time, and mostly got a bunch of “yeah, so what?”, combined with links to an article claiming that “the demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure’s death is not just misguided but dangerous”.

And that was when something clicked for me.

You can talk all you want about Islamophobia, but my friend’s “intelligent, reasoned, and thoughtful people” – her name for the Blue Tribe – can’t get together enough energy to really hate Osama, let alone Muslims in general. We understand that what he did was bad, but it didn’t anger us personally. When he died, we were able to very rationally apply our better nature and our Far Mode beliefs about how it’s never right to be happy about anyone else’s death.

On the other hand, that same group absolutely loathed Thatcher. Most of us (though not all) can agree, if the question is posed explicitly, that Osama was a worse person than Thatcher. But in terms of actual gut feeling? Osama provokes a snap judgment of “flawed human being”, Thatcher a snap judgment of “scum”.

Apparently what others took from this is when someone is celebrating the death of a public figure in ways which are hypocritical, it's appropriate to point out their hypocrisy. What I took from this is to conclude in resignation that people won't stop celebrating the death of public figures outside their political tribe, and I can't stop them, so I choose not to fight that battle. People are just going to celebrate the deaths of public figures in their hated outrgoup no matter what I do. I can't stop them. Rather than trying to force everyone to cooperate towards solemnly respecting the deaths of public figures, I figure we just have to let everyone in opposing groups take the occasional potshots at each other's heroes. While this hurts rather than helps the easing of intergroup conflict, it's hardly the most egregious escalation of rhetorical warfare. It's not my priority to quell every insignificant battle, especially when I think most typical strategies don't work.

This may be an unpopular opinion. I'm not standing up for what I think is right. I am not standing up for what is just or true. I'm not a coward so much as I'm cynical my efforts will be worth much when I expect I'm no less liable than anyone else to provoke a local flame war, while failing to prevent or change the behaviour of thousands of others across the Internet with whom I'll never interact. However, in a week, this instance of hypocrisy will subside, and the news and social media will grasp onto whatever new flavour of outrage is in vogue. There will be hundreds more skirmishes over who is the most righteous, and who is the most hypocritical, in yet another culture war. There are more and more culture wars all the time these days. Why I opt out of these wars is because I don't think preventing the local Nash equilibrium of two sides insulting one another is worth my time when there isn't also an opportunity to teach someone the only way to win these signaling games is not to play.  I'm saving my effort for those opportunities, which seem to be rare but I really wish in my everyday life were more common. I would if I could manufacture them, but I don't know how to. If you do, please let me know.

"Celebrating the deaths of public figures belonging to the nearest outgroup" is part of the broader trend of displaying some sort of outrage as a way to signal loyalty or as a badge of membership in some favoured ingroup. On the Internet, at least, this is in turn a way of getting infected by competing thought-germs:



These pernicious and insidious memes are using each of us, and each of our minds, as vectors to fight their battles for them. Just as much as they make us their soldiers, they make us their weapons as we become more mindless in our verbal violence. There will be times too when I am a hypocrite, as I'll unwittingly fall into the trap of entering this sort of debate, without being aware of it. I might even be the most offending part who is the first to fire a shot in the newest skirmish. However, whenever I gain the self-awareness to notice when my mind is hijacked, I will try to notice the pattern, and then I will stop participating in that particular instance of doomed debate entirely. I will not be a soldier in these wars if I can afford it. I am a conscientious objector. I hope you will be too.

 I will opt out of either side of these types of wars, because the true generals are ideas that will never die unless we stop paying attention to them. I am angling for world peace. I won't wade in as a peacekeeper in every skirmish to teach in one particular case how two belligerents are acting mindlessly. I would match rather teach people the broader trend of how politics can be a mind-killer, or at least to think about politics is to think in hard mode. Scott himself of Slate Star Codex might see the proxy war among humans between dueling thought-germs as one aspect of the monster known as Moloch. I have some friends who would call my strategy an attempt to avoid becoming the pawn of an egregore, wherever it came from. Egregores are an interesting concept I have much to learn about and I may introduce at greater length at a future time. I can't do them justice without a proper intro, and I won't do this here as my post winds down.

I'm not trying to one-up anyone by saying I'll tolerate anybody, including the outgroup, and also hypocritical members of the ingroup. Even if it seems like I'm trying to do that, I don't mean to come across that way. However, all it might take to express tolerance it to not stop people from being themselves, including when they're celebrating the death of a public enemy who in other circles is a venerated figure. This is my last commentary on the topic, and I will say nothing else regardless.

Listening to Podcasts While Working: I Can't Even...

In your experience, does listening to a podcast in the background while you're doing other work on the computer distract you from either absorbing the content of the podcast, reading something, or typing up what you're working on? I think listening to music might decrease my productivity in typing things up, but not reading on the computer. However, I think it puts me in the zone and keeps me from getting distracted from things besides what I'm working on, so I'll take that tradeoff.

However, this hasn't been my experience when listening to podcasts. Well, in particular, I'll listen to lectures on YouTube in a tab in the background. However, when I've done this in the past, I've had negative results. Really, sometimes I'll be reading an article while listening to a lecture or interview in the background, one hour will pass, and I'll realize I don't remember a single thing that was said by the speaker(s). Alternatively, if I consciously focus on listening to the lecture/interview while my eyes continue to scan, I'll realize I've completed moving my eyes over an entire paragraph without absorbing any of the content. It seems focusing on two mediums of intellectual content at the same time is too intense a form of multitasking for my brain to handle. Focusing on one simply wrecks my ability to focus on the other, to nearly a complete degree. Does anyone else have this experience? Do you know any ways around it?

My Effective Altruism Origin Story

Effective altruism is a destination each arrives at by way of a unique path. As such, it's always interesting to here one's origin story. Here's mine.

So, there's this guy who lives across the street from me, right? One day he was like "hey man, you should check out this blog". I was like "seems legit". The rest is history.

Please Watch My Blindspots: Information Hazard and Discussion of Global Risks

An information hazard (henceforth shortened to "info hazard") is a risk that (true) information shared will either cause harm, or provide another with the means to cause harm. Well-known within the global catastrophic risk (GCR) reduction community is that merely discussing GCRs may result in info hazards. The classic example of this is discussion of how terrorists might use biotechnology to engineer a pandemic will be used by terrorists as inspiration or instructions on how to do just that.

In the past, I've privately discussed not publicizing some information I write on GCRs, as they may pose an info hazard for increasing GCRs. However, I will not be running every thing I write on the topic through some sort of test to check for info hazards before I publish or publicize. Yet, that doesn't mean I have categorical confidence in my ability to identify what is or isn't an info hazard. What doesn't appear to be an info hazard to me may appear to obviously be an info hazard to others. Because of whatever cause or bias, I may have blindspots regarding this others don't.

 Thus, this blog post acts as a reminder that if you think something I publish poses an info hazard, either regarding GCRs or something else, please let me know. If you explain your rationale for why you think something is an info hazard and I disagree, we can discuss it, and I will during the discussion retract as best I can from the public Internet the piece in question. However, them being so rare, and readers very unlikely to tell me something is an info hazard when it actually isn't, I expect I will earnestly believe something is indeed an info hazard when faced with a claim of such. So, I will likely delete from the public eye any material you believe is an info hazard.

My Personal Focus On Global Catastrophic Risks

There are plenty of reasons I could rationalize for why a general focus on global catastrophic risks (GCRs) is more important than a special focus on any one GCR or existential risk (x-risk). Ultimately, though, I think I just have an advantage of thinking about GCRs in a generic fashion.

1. I'm not especially talented at maths or sciences. Thus, I'll never be a researcher for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Reflecting upon the neglected consideration of personal fit on altruistic career selection, as outlined in Will MacAskill's 2015 book Doing Good Better, and reading from the 80,000 Hours (80k) blog, I'm convinced I can do the most good, vis-a-vis GCRs, with a more generic focus at this time.
    
2. I'm familiar with different groups focusing on various individual GCRs or x-risks. Climate change is one so into the public domain it doesn't even bother mentioning who focuses on it. Environmentalism is a social movement in dozens upon dozens of countries, with millions of adherents around the world, and influences every sort of human institution. With other global catastrophic risks, there seem to be a handful of government and/or non-profit organizations which focus on them. However, there doesn't seem to me enough of a broad and informal network focused on the full suite of GCRs and x-risks. For example, there is an 'environmental movement', and even an 'A.I. safety' movement/community, but nobody mentions a 'GCR community'. I'd like to see this change. I think I can play a role in making this change.
    
3. Building on (2), there is a lack of coordination and consolidated communication/strategy across all GCRs. Due to how neglected and important a focus on GCRs is among folks in general, there needs to be more awareness between the communities around individual risks of each other. Part of this opinion is motivated by my believe different risks will interact with each other, and while organizations like the Global Catastrophic Risks Institute (GCRI) and its allies are aware of this, there isn't enough awareness of intersectional risks among organizations working 'on the ground' to mitigate risks.

As far as I can tell, there are seven organizations which focus on the mitigation of more than one GCR:

• Global Catastrophic Risks Institute (GCRI)
• Future of Humanity Institute (FHI)
• Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER)
• Future of Life Institute (FLI)
• Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil)
• Global Priorities Project (GPP)
• Skoll Global Threats Fund

If you're interested in learning more about the general coverage of GCRs, start by reading up on the work of any of these organizations.

The Changing Landscape of Television Production

[Note: the below seems the case for North American television. I don't know the history of television in other countries, so this may not apply.]

A Very Incomplete History of Television Production

In the last year I've been thinking everyone needs to rethink how we watch television. For several decades before the turn of the century, there were fewer TV channels and there was much less variety for viewers. As viewers had little choice, they had to take what they could get on the few channels. Networks had leeway to lower production values in some way. Conversely, they were also limited by audience preferences. Shows needed to be written in an episodic and generic fashion so they could appeal to as many folks as possible. While a network didn't feel threatened by a wide variety of channels, they didn't want to be outcompeted by the other one or two networks on the air.

Over the years, cable became more ubiquitous, and the variety in shows increased. However, the few networks became a handful of media conglomerates which owned most channels. Channels discriminate between different sections of the viewing public to specialize appeal. While this has increased variety, the transition from before wasn't complete. An example of this is how for many years HBO marketed itself as the channel that stood out from the pack to produce unique quality content.

However, it's only in the last decade viewers can discriminate among shows, series and their producers as much as producers and channels can discriminate between viewers. Because everyone can choose between Netflix and other streaming services, YouTube and other sites giving small-time producers the ability to produce a greater diversity of shows, and other trends of the Internet, they can select to watch whatever they want. With more competition for major networks, they need to try harder to produce quality content. Almost all companies have caught onto this a bit. For example, series like 'Mad Men' and 'Breaking Bad' have ushered in what's called the "Golden Age of Television". Streaming services are picking up shows, like "Community" and "The Mindy Project", that were cancelled by major networks. I can imagine the elation of so many people had digital streaming to pick up a series like "Firefly" when it was cancelled. Whether its any of the unique shows produced by Netflix, or series from the BBC making it across the ocean, atypical series are among the most popular among my friends.

Discrepancies In What We Want Vs. What We Get
The Internet has allowed folks to binge TV series. Pretty much everyone has indulged in spending a week straight watching the entirety of a series. For some series, this makes lots of sense. Something like 'Breaking Bad' or 'House of Cards' were produced with the anticipation viewers would watch all episodes back-to-back. Whole seasons are produced as short movies, one after another, as a complete arc which requires watching it all to be satisfied. However, major networks still get lots of money off the old formula of producing cookie-cutter episodes which can be picked up and watched one at a time.

So, still perhaps a majority of the money in television is poured into producing TV shows which appeal to the lowest common denominator, and hence, nobody in particular. The present-day typical example of this is the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory". While I still occasionally enjoy it, it has become the butt of many jokes and also much derision among most people I know. It's going into it's ninth season. From the same producers, the canned sitcom "Two and a Half Men" was on for eleven seasons, years passed when it deserved to be cancelled.

The problem is the common denominator is still shows on basic cable, or shows on the affiliate channels of major networks. The Nielsen ratings system in North America dominates. How it works are cable boxes are put in the homes of random viewing families which scan and then are analyzed to see which channels "typical viewers" are watching. This informs which shows are being the most watched, so networks know which shows will garner to most money from commericals, so they renew those ones and axe other ones which have niche appeal. While it may be a majority of viewing happens over the Internet, whether legal or illegal streaming or downloading from thousands of sources, producers of TV don't pick up on this.

I think one reason the formula of major producers don't respond to the changes tastes of viewers from generic to more varied programming is because they don't know how to gauge who's watching what. Media conglomerates don't know how to gauge viewership across so many different devices, laptops, smartphones, you name it, folks are watching across. This hasn't stopped Netflix from doing so, which is why they're able to produce bang-on content for any type of viewer. However, Netflix was born into the era of digital streaming, so they designed their metrics to gauge viewing across more than just folks standard TVs. Major networks don't know how to gauge what niche shows each of ten percent of their viewers are diehard fans for, rather than mediocre shows a plurality of viewers find passable. So, they'll keep producing the latter.


Conclusion: (Some) Mediocrity Will Persist

I don't think the Nielsen ratings system is going away soon. It's weakened, but it doesn't seem to be on its last legs. Baby Boomers will continue to have major cable subscriptions for the next twenty years, and enough of the next generation, the key demographic of 18-45 year-olds, watches enough cable to satisfy the needs of networks and advertisers. Really, it's only when the demographic trend switches from Baby Boomers and cable to younger viewers and digital streaming that how producers will definitely change how they respond. Until then, we'll have this weird and unsatisfying mix of excellent and mediocre television battling for the heart of pop culture.

So, while folks are happy with the variety and diversity of series they watch, perhaps they wish some of them would have a higher profile, so they would last longer or had higher production values. Maybe they just want more money thrown at more creative and experimental shows. The switch from one thing for everyone to something special for everyone likely won't be complete for a long time. I anticipated writing this post with more thoughts on what comes next, how we should watch shows differently. However, just covering how television production works and why is long enough. I'll cover other thoughts in future posts.