Could you say why you chose the name Probably Good, and to what extent thatâs locked-in at this stage?
I may be alone in this, but to me it seems like a weird name, perhaps especially if a large part of your target audience will be new EAs and non-EAs.
Firstly, it seems like it doesnât make it at all clear what the focus of the organisation is (i.e., career advice). 80,000 Hoursâ name also doesnât make its focus clear right away, but the connection can be explained in a single sentence, and from then on the connection seems very clear. Whereas if you say âWe want to give career advice thatâs probably goodâ, I might still think âBut couldnât that name work just as well and for just the same reason for donation advice, or AI research, or relationship advice, or advice about what present to buy a friend?â
This is perhaps exacerbated by the fact that âgoodâ can be about either morality or quality, and that the name doesnât provide any clues that in this case itâs about morality. (Whereas CEA has âaltruismâ in the nameânot just âeffectiveââand GiveWell has âgiveâ in the nameânot just âwellâ.)
In contrast, most other EA orgsâ names seem to more clearly gesture at roughly what they focus on (e.g., Animal Advocacy Careers, Animal Charity Evaluators, GiveWell, Giving What We Can, Centre for Effective Altruism...).
Secondly, I think Iâd feel pretty underwhelmed if someone introduces what they do as âWe want to give career advice thatâs probably good.â
Iâd be even more strongly turned off if someone said âWe give highly precise career advice thatâs all definitelygood for everyoneâ, as Iâd think theyâre wrong and overconfident. And Iâd want your org, 80,000 Hours, GiveWell, etc. to all make very clear how complicated the questions they tackle are and how confident they are in what they say (which should and will often be ânot veryâ).
But maybe the best way to do that is by saying something like âWe want to help people have the highest impact they can have. This is extremely complicated, and we know we donât have all the answers, and on some questions on which we have pretty much no clue at all. But we work hard to get the best answers we can, and there are some questions where weâre pretty confident we can be quite helpful.â (This is just what came to mind quickly; Iâm not saying itâs the ideal pitch.)
Maybe to me, starting by saying âProbably Goodâ sounds not like virtuous humility and recognition of uncertainty, but rather like a lack of ambitionâlike shrugging and settling for something decent, rather than pushing hard to get closer and closer to the best answers, even if they can never be reached with certainty. (Iâm saying thatâs what the phrase brings to mind, not that I think that accurately describes your approach.)
I suspect this might be a bigger problem for new or non-EAs. They might think the answers should be relatively easy and certain, as they havenât considered complexities like downside risks and counterfactuals and flow-through effects. If so, they might find something less attractive if it says itâs just âProbably Goodâ. And/âor they might be used to overconfidence, and thus instinctively interpret people saying âcertainlyâ as âprobablyâ, âprobablyâ as âmaybeâ, etc.
So my personal view is that it seems likely you could come up with a better name. And it also seems like the best time to think carefully about this is now or soon, before you e.g. put up a website.
First of all, thank you for the feedback! Itâs not always easy to solicit quality (and very thoroughly justified) feedback, so I really appreciate it.
Before diving into the specifics, Iâll say that on the one handâthe name could definitely change if we keep getting feedback that itâs suboptimal. That could be in a week or in a year or two, so the name isnât final in that sense.
On the other hand, we did run this name quite a few people (including some who arenât familiar with EA). We tried (to the best of our ability) to receive honest feedback (like not telling people that this is something weâre setting up or letting someone else solicit the feedback). Most of what you wrote came up, but rarely. And people seemed to feel positively about it. Itâs definitely possible that the feedback we got on it was still skewed positive, but it was much better for this name than for other options we tried.
Now, to dive into the specifics and my thoughts on them:
* The name doesnât make the function clear: I think this is a stylistic preference. I prefer having a name thatâs more memorable, when the function can be explained in a sentence or two right after it. I know the current norm for EA is to name orgs by stating their function in 2 or 3 words, but I think the vast majority of orgs (for profit and non-profit) choose a name that doesnât just plainly state what the org does. I will mention that, depending on context, what might appear is âProbably Good Career Adviceâ, which is clearer (though still doesnât fully optimize for clarity).
* Good can mean quality and morality: Again, I liked that. We do mean it in both ways (the advice is both attempting to be as high quality as possibly and as high as possible in moral impact, but we are working under uncertainty in both parameters).
* Turning people off by giving the message that the product isnât good or that weâre not ambitious in making it good: I pretty much fully agree with you on the analysis. I think this name reduces the risk of people expecting a level of certainty that weâll never reach (and is very commonly marketed in non-EA career advice) and increases the risk of people initially being turned off by perceived low quality or low effort.
I also like and agree with your âpitchâ and that is more of less how Iâm thinking about the issue.
Two relevant points on weighing this trade-off:
1. Currently, Iâm more worried about setting too high expectations than the perception of low quality. Both because I think we can potentially cause more harm (people following advice with less thought than needed) and because I think there are other ways to signal high quality and very few ways to (effectively) lower peopleâs perceived certainty in our advice.
2. Most people we ran the name by did catch on that the name was a little tongue-in-cheek in itâs phrasing. This wasnât everyone, but the people who did see thatâdidnât think there was a signal of lower quality.
I do agree thereâs a risk there, but I see it as relatively small, especially if Iâm assuming that most people will reach us through channels where they have supposedly heard something about us and arenât only aware of the name.
To summarize my thoughts:
I donât think itâs a perfect name.
I like that itâs a memorable phrase rather than a bland statement of what we do. I like that itâs a little tongue-in-cheek and that it does a few things at the same time (two meaning or good, alluding the the uncertainty). I like that it put our uncertainty front and center.
I agree thereâs a risk of signaling low quality \ effort and that all of the things that I like could also be a net harm if Iâm wrong (which isnât specifically unlikely).
Weâll collect more feedback on the name and weâll change if it doesnât look good.
In addition to the other points brought up, I wanted to add that âprobably goodâ has ~4 million google search results, and the username/âurl for âProbablyGoodâ has already been taken on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. This may make the name especially difficult to effectively market.
* Good can mean quality and morality: Again, I liked that. We do mean it in both ways (the advice is both attempting to be as high quality as possibly and as high as possible in moral impact, but we are working under uncertainty in both parameters).
For what itâs worth, I liked the name specifically because to me it seemed to advertise an intention of increasing a lot of readersâ impact individually by a moderate amount, unlike 80000âČs approach where the goal is to increase fewer readersâ impact by a large amount.
I.e. unlike Michael I like the understatement in the name, but I agree with him that it does convey understatement.
I continue to like how thoughtful you two seem to be! It seems like youâve already anticipated most of what Iâm pointing to and have reasonable reasons to hold your current position. I especially like that you âtried (to the best of [your] ability) to receive honest feedback (like not telling people that this is something [youâre] setting up or letting someone else solicit the feedback).â
I still think this name doesnât seem great to me, but now thatâs with lower confidence.
(Also, Iâm just reporting my independent impressionâi.e., what Iâd believe if not updating on other peopleâs beliefsâand donât mean to imply thereâs any reason to weight my belief more strongly than that of the other people youâve gotten feedback from.)
Iâll again split my responses into separate threads.
FWIW: 75 upvotes (as of now) for Michaelâs post seem strong evidence that at least a significant fraction of forum readers find the name âweirdâ or âoff-puttingâ at first glance. In most cases, that might be enough for people not to look into it more (e.g. if itâs one of hundreds of posts on their Facebook timeline).
Even if the other half of people find the name great, I think Iâd rather go for a less controversial name which no-one finds weird (even if fewer people find it great).
Finding a good name is difficultâall the best and let us know if we can help! You could e.g. solicit ideas here on in a Facebook group and run polls in the âEA pollsâ group to get better quantitative feedback.
Weâre definitely taking into account the different comments and upvotes on this post. We appreciate people upvoting the views theyâd like to supportâthis is indeed a quick and efficient way for us to aggregate feedback.
Weâve received recommendations against opening public polls about the name of the organization from founders of existing EA organizations, and we trust those recommendations so weâll probably avoid that route. But we will likely look into ways we can test the hypothesis of whether a âless controversialâ name has positive or negative effects on the reaction of someone hearing this name for the first time.
I think this name reduces the risk of people expecting a level of certainty that weâll never reach (and is very commonly marketed in non-EA career advice)
Just commenting to say that, in my view, itâs really promising for your project that this concern is so front-and-center already.
Iâm probably preaching to the choir, but I think that epistemic modesty is absolutely key in EA, and working hard to communicate your uncertainty â even when your audience is looking for certainty â is even better.
Revisiting this just to say that, for what itâs worth, the Danish beer company Carlsberg has been very successful with its slogan of being âProbably the Best Beer in the World.â
I think this name reduces the risk of people expecting a level of certainty that weâll never reach (and is very commonly marketed in non-EA career advice)
[...] Currently, Iâm more worried about setting too high expectations than the perception of low quality. Both because I think we can potentially cause more harm (people following advice with less thought than needed) and because I think there are other ways to signal high quality and very few ways to (effectively) lower peopleâs perceived certainty in our advice.
I agree that:
Many non-EA things market themselves with more certainty than is warranted
EA things that donât want to be perceived as very confident or as having definitive answers sometimes are anyway (e.g., 80k have often expressed that this happen to them)
Itâs worth making serious efforts to mitigate that risk
This name might help with mitigating that
From my current perspective, this might be the strongest argument for Probably Good as the name.
I donât know enough to say whether there are indeed âvery few ways to (effectively) lower peopleâs perceived certainty in our adviceâ. (Though I think one bit of evidence in favour of that is that 80k seems to struggle with this despite putting a lot of effort into it.) Could you expand on why you think that?
If youâre right about that, and the name Probably Good would substantially help with this issue, then that seems like quite a strong argument indeed for this name.
But maybe if youâre right about the above claim, thatâs also evidence that the name Probably Good wonât substantially help?
Another framing is that the marginal risk-mitigation from having that name might be relatively small, if youâll in any case infuse a lot of the rest of the project with clear statements of uncertainty and efforts to push against being taken as gospel. I say this (with low confidence) because:
Iâd imagine that for many people, those statements and efforts will be enough.
And for some people, any EAcareer advice provider, and especially any âlistsâ or concrete suggestions they provide, will be taken roughly as gospel, regardless of that providerâs efforts to prevent that.
So I feel unsure whether thereâd be many people for whom the name being Probably Good would substantially affect the extent to which they overweight the advice, or get angry if following the advice doesnât work out, or the like.
But maybe there would beâI wouldnât claim to have any real expertise or data on this. And youâve obviously thought about it much more than me :)
I was thinking of two main things when I said there arenât many ways to reduce peopleâs expectation of certainty.
The first, as you mentioned, is 80kâs experience that this is something where claiming it (clearly and repeatedly) didnât have the desired outcome.
The second, is through my own experience, both in giving career advice and in other areas where I did consultation-type work. My impression was (and again, this is far from strong evidence) that (1) this is hard to do and (2) it gets harder if you donât do it immediately at the beginning. So for example, when I do 1:1sâthatâs something I go into when setting expectations in the first few minutes. When I didnât, that was very hard to correct after 30 minutes. This is one of the reasons that I think having this prominent (doesnât have to be the name, could be in the tagline \ etc.) could be helpful.
Your later points seem to indicate something which I also agree with: That naming isnât super important. I think there are specific pitfalls that can be seriously harmful, but besides thatâI donât expect the org name to have a very large effect by itself one way or another.
The name doesnât make the function clear: I think this is a stylistic preference. [...] I think the vast majority of orgs (for profit and non-profit) choose a name that doesnât just plainly state what the org does.
Yeah, I think this is true, and reduces the importance of my first âargument againstâ the name. (I think my second argument seems a bigger deal to me than the first one, but I didnât make that clear.)
I do agree thereâs a risk there, but I see it as relatively small, especially if Iâm assuming that most people will reach us through channels where they have supposedly heard something about us and arenât only aware of the name.
Thatâs a good point. I think this reduces both the risks and also perhaps the benefits of any particular name (as it makes precisely what the name is less important in peopleâs overall views or actions regarding the organisation).
I will mention that, depending on context, what might appear is âProbably Good Career Adviceâ, which is clearer (though still doesnât fully optimize for clarity).
Yeah, that helps with the first âissueâ I raised.
Though reading that sentence made me realise another potential issue with the name (or maybe another thing that was subconsciously part of my initial aversion to it but): I think it sounds to me quite tongue-in-cheek and non-serious, in a way that might not be best for your aims. (You note the âtongue-in-cheekâ-ness later in your comment as a positive, and I think it can be sometimes, but in this particular case I currently think it may be more likely to be negative.)
If someone directed me to âProbably Good Career Adviceâ, it might sound like either some sort of joke/âprank/âspoof, or something that was real but the name of which is sort-of a joke. And I might assume it was set up by people who are still in college. (It maybe feels like the sort of name the Weasley brothers in Harry Potter wouldâve come up with.)
So if what Iâm after in this context is advice on how to maximise my impact on the world, I might think these people probably arenât the sort of people whoâll be addressing that serious question in a serious way. I think this would actually be true for me, and Iâm only 24 and did stand-up comedy for several yearsâi.e., Iâm not a very âserious personâ, but Iâve got my âserious personâ hat on when Iâm first engaging with a new org regarding how to make my career impactful. I imagine this issue might be more pronounced on average for people who are older or âmore seriousâ than me, which includes a lot of potentially impactful people.
This is different to e.g. 80k having some tongue-in-cheek parts of some articles or podcast episodes, because thatâs not the very first thing someone will see from 80k, and itâs always just a part of a larger thing thatâs mostly focused on impact. With the name Probably Good, thatâs essentially the first thing someone will see from the org, and itâs not just a part embedded in something else (the name is like its own thing, not a sentence in an article).
But itâs totally possible a higher proportion of your target audience would be attracted to than pushed away by the tongue-in-cheek-ness of the name; Iâm just going by my own reaction, which is of course a minuscule sample size.
This is the risk we were most worried about regarding the name. It does set a relatively light tone. We decided to go with it anyway for two reasons:
The first is that the people we talked to said that it sounds interesting and interested them more than the responses we got for more regular, descriptive names.
The second is that our general tone in writing is more serious. Serious enough that weâre working hard to make sure that it isnât boring for some people who donât like reading huge walls of dense text. We figure itâs best to err on the other side in this case.
Iâm not a fan of the name âProbably Goodâ because:
if itâs describing the advice, it seems like the advice might be pretty low-effort and not worth paying attention to
if itâs describing the careers, it sounds like the careers recommended have a significant chance of having a negative impact, so again, not worth reading about
I want to briefly second (third?, nth?) this. Iâm potentially pretty excited about more EA oriented career advice/âcoaching/âmentoring from an EA perspective, but I think Iâd feel kind of embarrassed about referring someone to an organisation called âProbably Goodâ.
When I saw the title of this post I thought it was evaluating whether or not another career guidance organisation would be good or not, and concluding yes. I was pretty surprised to discover this was not the case. That confusion might be kind of funny to some people, I guess, but I donât think it bodes terribly well. In general I think jokey org names are a pretty bad idea.
Just writing a quick comment here that Iâve changed the title of this post to be less confusing.
The previous title: âA New Career Guidance Organization: Probably Goodâ does sound like this is an evaluation. Didnât want to it seem like this comment didnât make sense to people who havenât seen the previous post title.
I think Probably good is a great name. What are some other good names you have considered so far?
Does anyone have alternative ideas ?
My first understanding of the name was something like âthis is a website that will help me have a career that will probably have a good impactâ, where probably meant something like ~70%-ish. I thought this wasnât very ambitious, but it also had something intriguing, so I felt curious to learn more.
Iâd like my career to be (almost) guaranteed to have some good consequences. I think my odds of doing some good with my career if EA didnât exist at all would be above 95%. (As many people interested in EA, I already wanted to do good when I discovered the movement.)
So Iâd be even more interested in a website which can probably help me do even better than I would have done without its advice.
Iâm not sure that âProbably betterâ would be a better name than âProbably goodâ. I feel like it preserves the modesty and the catchiness, while also making it sound a little more ambitious. It could also be in line with your experimental approach, trying to make the quality your advice better as you gain experience.
My initial intuition (stressing even more that this is based on no evidence but my best guess) is that the name âProbably Betterâ would be more confusing to people than âProbably Goodâ. Iâm expecting a lot of people asking âbetter than what?â
It also loses the meaning of good as in moral good (which I like, but not everyone here did).
That was also my first thought. My brain autocompleted something like âProbably good, but wouldnât be surprised if badâ. I think I donât mind names being more or less informative much, though, as long as the name is unique and sounds nice (though the EA standard seems to be more discriptive rather than less).
(And thanks to the founders, I really would love seeing new orgs to cover what 80,000Hours doesnât!)
Could you say why you chose the name Probably Good, and to what extent thatâs locked-in at this stage?
I may be alone in this, but to me it seems like a weird name, perhaps especially if a large part of your target audience will be new EAs and non-EAs.
Firstly, it seems like it doesnât make it at all clear what the focus of the organisation is (i.e., career advice). 80,000 Hoursâ name also doesnât make its focus clear right away, but the connection can be explained in a single sentence, and from then on the connection seems very clear. Whereas if you say âWe want to give career advice thatâs probably goodâ, I might still think âBut couldnât that name work just as well and for just the same reason for donation advice, or AI research, or relationship advice, or advice about what present to buy a friend?â
This is perhaps exacerbated by the fact that âgoodâ can be about either morality or quality, and that the name doesnât provide any clues that in this case itâs about morality. (Whereas CEA has âaltruismâ in the nameânot just âeffectiveââand GiveWell has âgiveâ in the nameânot just âwellâ.)
In contrast, most other EA orgsâ names seem to more clearly gesture at roughly what they focus on (e.g., Animal Advocacy Careers, Animal Charity Evaluators, GiveWell, Giving What We Can, Centre for Effective Altruism...).
Secondly, I think Iâd feel pretty underwhelmed if someone introduces what they do as âWe want to give career advice thatâs probably good.â
Iâd be even more strongly turned off if someone said âWe give highly precise career advice thatâs all definitely good for everyoneâ, as Iâd think theyâre wrong and overconfident. And Iâd want your org, 80,000 Hours, GiveWell, etc. to all make very clear how complicated the questions they tackle are and how confident they are in what they say (which should and will often be ânot veryâ).
But maybe the best way to do that is by saying something like âWe want to help people have the highest impact they can have. This is extremely complicated, and we know we donât have all the answers, and on some questions on which we have pretty much no clue at all. But we work hard to get the best answers we can, and there are some questions where weâre pretty confident we can be quite helpful.â (This is just what came to mind quickly; Iâm not saying itâs the ideal pitch.)
Maybe to me, starting by saying âProbably Goodâ sounds not like virtuous humility and recognition of uncertainty, but rather like a lack of ambitionâlike shrugging and settling for something decent, rather than pushing hard to get closer and closer to the best answers, even if they can never be reached with certainty. (Iâm saying thatâs what the phrase brings to mind, not that I think that accurately describes your approach.)
I suspect this might be a bigger problem for new or non-EAs. They might think the answers should be relatively easy and certain, as they havenât considered complexities like downside risks and counterfactuals and flow-through effects. If so, they might find something less attractive if it says itâs just âProbably Goodâ. And/âor they might be used to overconfidence, and thus instinctively interpret people saying âcertainlyâ as âprobablyâ, âprobablyâ as âmaybeâ, etc.
So my personal view is that it seems likely you could come up with a better name. And it also seems like the best time to think carefully about this is now or soon, before you e.g. put up a website.
First of all, thank you for the feedback! Itâs not always easy to solicit quality (and very thoroughly justified) feedback, so I really appreciate it.
Before diving into the specifics, Iâll say that on the one handâthe name could definitely change if we keep getting feedback that itâs suboptimal. That could be in a week or in a year or two, so the name isnât final in that sense.
On the other hand, we did run this name quite a few people (including some who arenât familiar with EA). We tried (to the best of our ability) to receive honest feedback (like not telling people that this is something weâre setting up or letting someone else solicit the feedback). Most of what you wrote came up, but rarely. And people seemed to feel positively about it. Itâs definitely possible that the feedback we got on it was still skewed positive, but it was much better for this name than for other options we tried.
Now, to dive into the specifics and my thoughts on them:
* The name doesnât make the function clear: I think this is a stylistic preference. I prefer having a name thatâs more memorable, when the function can be explained in a sentence or two right after it. I know the current norm for EA is to name orgs by stating their function in 2 or 3 words, but I think the vast majority of orgs (for profit and non-profit) choose a name that doesnât just plainly state what the org does. I will mention that, depending on context, what might appear is âProbably Good Career Adviceâ, which is clearer (though still doesnât fully optimize for clarity).
* Good can mean quality and morality: Again, I liked that. We do mean it in both ways (the advice is both attempting to be as high quality as possibly and as high as possible in moral impact, but we are working under uncertainty in both parameters).
* Turning people off by giving the message that the product isnât good or that weâre not ambitious in making it good: I pretty much fully agree with you on the analysis. I think this name reduces the risk of people expecting a level of certainty that weâll never reach (and is very commonly marketed in non-EA career advice) and increases the risk of people initially being turned off by perceived low quality or low effort.
I also like and agree with your âpitchâ and that is more of less how Iâm thinking about the issue.
Two relevant points on weighing this trade-off:
1. Currently, Iâm more worried about setting too high expectations than the perception of low quality. Both because I think we can potentially cause more harm (people following advice with less thought than needed) and because I think there are other ways to signal high quality and very few ways to (effectively) lower peopleâs perceived certainty in our advice.
2. Most people we ran the name by did catch on that the name was a little tongue-in-cheek in itâs phrasing. This wasnât everyone, but the people who did see thatâdidnât think there was a signal of lower quality.
I do agree thereâs a risk there, but I see it as relatively small, especially if Iâm assuming that most people will reach us through channels where they have supposedly heard something about us and arenât only aware of the name.
To summarize my thoughts:
I donât think itâs a perfect name.
I like that itâs a memorable phrase rather than a bland statement of what we do. I like that itâs a little tongue-in-cheek and that it does a few things at the same time (two meaning or good, alluding the the uncertainty). I like that it put our uncertainty front and center.
I agree thereâs a risk of signaling low quality \ effort and that all of the things that I like could also be a net harm if Iâm wrong (which isnât specifically unlikely).
Weâll collect more feedback on the name and weâll change if it doesnât look good.
In addition to the other points brought up, I wanted to add that âprobably goodâ has ~4 million google search results, and the username/âurl for âProbablyGoodâ has already been taken on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. This may make the name especially difficult to effectively market.
For what itâs worth, I liked the name specifically because to me it seemed to advertise an intention of increasing a lot of readersâ impact individually by a moderate amount, unlike 80000âČs approach where the goal is to increase fewer readersâ impact by a large amount.
I.e. unlike Michael I like the understatement in the name, but I agree with him that it does convey understatement.
I continue to like how thoughtful you two seem to be! It seems like youâve already anticipated most of what Iâm pointing to and have reasonable reasons to hold your current position. I especially like that you âtried (to the best of [your] ability) to receive honest feedback (like not telling people that this is something [youâre] setting up or letting someone else solicit the feedback).â
I still think this name doesnât seem great to me, but now thatâs with lower confidence.
(Also, Iâm just reporting my independent impressionâi.e., what Iâd believe if not updating on other peopleâs beliefsâand donât mean to imply thereâs any reason to weight my belief more strongly than that of the other people youâve gotten feedback from.)
Iâll again split my responses into separate threads.
FWIW: 75 upvotes (as of now) for Michaelâs post seem strong evidence that at least a significant fraction of forum readers find the name âweirdâ or âoff-puttingâ at first glance. In most cases, that might be enough for people not to look into it more (e.g. if itâs one of hundreds of posts on their Facebook timeline).
Even if the other half of people find the name great, I think Iâd rather go for a less controversial name which no-one finds weird (even if fewer people find it great).
Finding a good name is difficultâall the best and let us know if we can help! You could e.g. solicit ideas here on in a Facebook group and run polls in the âEA pollsâ group to get better quantitative feedback.
Weâre definitely taking into account the different comments and upvotes on this post. We appreciate people upvoting the views theyâd like to supportâthis is indeed a quick and efficient way for us to aggregate feedback.
Weâve received recommendations against opening public polls about the name of the organization from founders of existing EA organizations, and we trust those recommendations so weâll probably avoid that route. But we will likely look into ways we can test the hypothesis of whether a âless controversialâ name has positive or negative effects on the reaction of someone hearing this name for the first time.
Sorry if this is not helpful, but I felt like brainstorming some names.
Worthwhile/âWorthy Pursuits
Paths of Impact
Good Callings
Careers for Good/âChange
Good Careers Advice
Altruistic Career Support
(Impactify, WorkWell seem already taken⊠and for the latter GiveWell might not appreciate the association)
How about just Good Careers?
The two most widely known EA organizations, GiveWell and 80,000 Hours, both have short and simple names.
Just commenting to say that, in my view, itâs really promising for your project that this concern is so front-and-center already.
Iâm probably preaching to the choir, but I think that epistemic modesty is absolutely key in EA, and working hard to communicate your uncertainty â even when your audience is looking for certainty â is even better.
Best of luck!
Revisiting this just to say that, for what itâs worth, the Danish beer company Carlsberg has been very successful with its slogan of being âProbably the Best Beer in the World.â
I agree that:
Many non-EA things market themselves with more certainty than is warranted
EA things that donât want to be perceived as very confident or as having definitive answers sometimes are anyway (e.g., 80k have often expressed that this happen to them)
Itâs worth making serious efforts to mitigate that risk
This name might help with mitigating that
From my current perspective, this might be the strongest argument for Probably Good as the name.
I donât know enough to say whether there are indeed âvery few ways to (effectively) lower peopleâs perceived certainty in our adviceâ. (Though I think one bit of evidence in favour of that is that 80k seems to struggle with this despite putting a lot of effort into it.) Could you expand on why you think that?
If youâre right about that, and the name Probably Good would substantially help with this issue, then that seems like quite a strong argument indeed for this name.
But maybe if youâre right about the above claim, thatâs also evidence that the name Probably Good wonât substantially help?
Another framing is that the marginal risk-mitigation from having that name might be relatively small, if youâll in any case infuse a lot of the rest of the project with clear statements of uncertainty and efforts to push against being taken as gospel. I say this (with low confidence) because:
Iâd imagine that for many people, those statements and efforts will be enough.
And for some people, any EA career advice provider, and especially any âlistsâ or concrete suggestions they provide, will be taken roughly as gospel, regardless of that providerâs efforts to prevent that.
So I feel unsure whether thereâd be many people for whom the name being Probably Good would substantially affect the extent to which they overweight the advice, or get angry if following the advice doesnât work out, or the like.
But maybe there would beâI wouldnât claim to have any real expertise or data on this. And youâve obviously thought about it much more than me :)
I think we agree on more than we disagree :-)
I was thinking of two main things when I said there arenât many ways to reduce peopleâs expectation of certainty.
The first, as you mentioned, is 80kâs experience that this is something where claiming it (clearly and repeatedly) didnât have the desired outcome.
The second, is through my own experience, both in giving career advice and in other areas where I did consultation-type work. My impression was (and again, this is far from strong evidence) that (1) this is hard to do and (2) it gets harder if you donât do it immediately at the beginning. So for example, when I do 1:1sâthatâs something I go into when setting expectations in the first few minutes. When I didnât, that was very hard to correct after 30 minutes. This is one of the reasons that I think having this prominent (doesnât have to be the name, could be in the tagline \ etc.) could be helpful.
Your later points seem to indicate something which I also agree with: That naming isnât super important. I think there are specific pitfalls that can be seriously harmful, but besides thatâI donât expect the org name to have a very large effect by itself one way or another.
Yeah, I think this is true, and reduces the importance of my first âargument againstâ the name. (I think my second argument seems a bigger deal to me than the first one, but I didnât make that clear.)
Thatâs a good point. I think this reduces both the risks and also perhaps the benefits of any particular name (as it makes precisely what the name is less important in peopleâs overall views or actions regarding the organisation).
Yeah, that helps with the first âissueâ I raised.
Though reading that sentence made me realise another potential issue with the name (or maybe another thing that was subconsciously part of my initial aversion to it but): I think it sounds to me quite tongue-in-cheek and non-serious, in a way that might not be best for your aims. (You note the âtongue-in-cheekâ-ness later in your comment as a positive, and I think it can be sometimes, but in this particular case I currently think it may be more likely to be negative.)
If someone directed me to âProbably Good Career Adviceâ, it might sound like either some sort of joke/âprank/âspoof, or something that was real but the name of which is sort-of a joke. And I might assume it was set up by people who are still in college. (It maybe feels like the sort of name the Weasley brothers in Harry Potter wouldâve come up with.)
So if what Iâm after in this context is advice on how to maximise my impact on the world, I might think these people probably arenât the sort of people whoâll be addressing that serious question in a serious way. I think this would actually be true for me, and Iâm only 24 and did stand-up comedy for several yearsâi.e., Iâm not a very âserious personâ, but Iâve got my âserious personâ hat on when Iâm first engaging with a new org regarding how to make my career impactful. I imagine this issue might be more pronounced on average for people who are older or âmore seriousâ than me, which includes a lot of potentially impactful people.
This is different to e.g. 80k having some tongue-in-cheek parts of some articles or podcast episodes, because thatâs not the very first thing someone will see from 80k, and itâs always just a part of a larger thing thatâs mostly focused on impact. With the name Probably Good, thatâs essentially the first thing someone will see from the org, and itâs not just a part embedded in something else (the name is like its own thing, not a sentence in an article).
But itâs totally possible a higher proportion of your target audience would be attracted to than pushed away by the tongue-in-cheek-ness of the name; Iâm just going by my own reaction, which is of course a minuscule sample size.
This is the risk we were most worried about regarding the name. It does set a relatively light tone. We decided to go with it anyway for two reasons:
The first is that the people we talked to said that it sounds interesting and interested them more than the responses we got for more regular, descriptive names.
The second is that our general tone in writing is more serious. Serious enough that weâre working hard to make sure that it isnât boring for some people who donât like reading huge walls of dense text. We figure itâs best to err on the other side in this case.
Iâm not a fan of the name âProbably Goodâ because:
if itâs describing the advice, it seems like the advice might be pretty low-effort and not worth paying attention to
if itâs describing the careers, it sounds like the careers recommended have a significant chance of having a negative impact, so again, not worth reading about
I want to briefly second (third?, nth?) this. Iâm potentially pretty excited about more EA oriented career advice/âcoaching/âmentoring from an EA perspective, but I think Iâd feel kind of embarrassed about referring someone to an organisation called âProbably Goodâ.
When I saw the title of this post I thought it was evaluating whether or not another career guidance organisation would be good or not, and concluding yes. I was pretty surprised to discover this was not the case. That confusion might be kind of funny to some people, I guess, but I donât think it bodes terribly well. In general I think jokey org names are a pretty bad idea.
Just writing a quick comment here that Iâve changed the title of this post to be less confusing.
The previous title: âA New Career Guidance Organization: Probably Goodâ does sound like this is an evaluation. Didnât want to it seem like this comment didnât make sense to people who havenât seen the previous post title.
The quality of this conversation is awesome!
I think Probably good is a great name. What are some other good names you have considered so far? Does anyone have alternative ideas ?
My first understanding of the name was something like âthis is a website that will help me have a career that will probably have a good impactâ, where probably meant something like ~70%-ish. I thought this wasnât very ambitious, but it also had something intriguing, so I felt curious to learn more.
Iâd like my career to be (almost) guaranteed to have some good consequences. I think my odds of doing some good with my career if EA didnât exist at all would be above 95%. (As many people interested in EA, I already wanted to do good when I discovered the movement.)
So Iâd be even more interested in a website which can probably help me do even better than I would have done without its advice.
Iâm not sure that âProbably betterâ would be a better name than âProbably goodâ. I feel like it preserves the modesty and the catchiness, while also making it sound a little more ambitious. It could also be in line with your experimental approach, trying to make the quality your advice better as you gain experience.
What do you think ? :)
My initial intuition (stressing even more that this is based on no evidence but my best guess) is that the name âProbably Betterâ would be more confusing to people than âProbably Goodâ. Iâm expecting a lot of people asking âbetter than what?â
It also loses the meaning of good as in moral good (which I like, but not everyone here did).
That was also my first thought. My brain autocompleted something like âProbably good, but wouldnât be surprised if badâ. I think I donât mind names being more or less informative much, though, as long as the name is unique and sounds nice (though the EA standard seems to be more discriptive rather than less).
(And thanks to the founders, I really would love seeing new orgs to cover what 80,000Hours doesnât!)