1) What is an optimal course of action when you encounter a situation in which you have a good amount of epistemic uncertainty? We exist and act in the world, so we have to do something before we have all the information, right?
No Half-Speed
In this reading, how does one keep from getting caught in the troughs in the chart:
2) How does avoid getting (emotionally) attached to/invested in a side in a debate? How does this relate to getting emotionally invested in a specific outcome of a discrete event?
The readings below also touch on identity, which seems to be a way into this topic:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/627DZcvme7nLDrbZu/update-yourself-incrementally#fn1x25-bk
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wTrgm2meHePfn3ykT/a-rational-identity
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uR8c2NPp4bWHQ5u45/strategic-choice-of-identity
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Zupr296Zy74wpihXT/use-your-identity-carefully
3) The repugnant conclusion. This seems to be a line of thinking that seems to be operating in the background during a lot of discussions in effective altruism circles. Is it persuasive? If not, what is missing?
5-minute Explanation from Julia Galef
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
Somewhat addresses what to do when confronted with a logical argument like this:
