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?
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:
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
Somewhat addresses what to do when confronted with a logical argument like this: