I do agree that some EAs have labelled certain critiques as âbad faithâ or âbad epistemicsâ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasnât been much vitriol of the level Crary engages with in her article, and I think that can be a barrier to good-faith dialogue on both sides.
The Kemp piece looks really good! Iâve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. Iâm aware of Garrison and Habiba but will look into what Rutger has said. Thanks for sharing these people and their perspectives, I think these are exactly the kind of perspectives that EA should be listening to and engaging with.
The McGoey piece seems (at first glance) like itâs a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/âWTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the âWashington Consensusâ)[1] and how they may have harmed the worldâs poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA âthe Dumbest Idea of the Centuryâ. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldnât have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, Iâd recommend starting with Globalization and Its Discontents, by noted leftie firebrand *checks notes* Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and former Chief Economist of the World bank
But I think itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
I understand. I never take this stuff personally myself. I even think itâs more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for itâat that time and place) if itâs espescially disagreeable/â hostile.
I havenât read Crary but itâs on my list. The headline for McGoeyâs piece is quite harsh, but thereâs no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. âexcuses for the richâ isnât that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positionsâwhilst itâs head for us to hearâit wouldnât be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesnât EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If itâs ultimately good for EA in the endâbring it on! More critcism is good.
I do agree that some EAs have labelled certain critiques as âbad faithâ or âbad epistemicsâ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasnât been much vitriol of the level Crary engages with in her article, and I think that can be a barrier to good-faith dialogue on both sides.
The Kemp piece looks really good! Iâve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. Iâm aware of Garrison and Habiba but will look into what Rutger has said. Thanks for sharing these people and their perspectives, I think these are exactly the kind of perspectives that EA should be listening to and engaging with.
The McGoey piece seems (at first glance) like itâs a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/âWTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the âWashington Consensusâ)[1] and how they may have harmed the worldâs poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA âthe Dumbest Idea of the Centuryâ. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldnât have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, Iâd recommend starting with Globalization and Its Discontents, by noted leftie firebrand *checks notes* Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and former Chief Economist of the World bank
Torres & Gebru especially deploy the rhetoric of the last 2
Glad to hear it.
I understand. I never take this stuff personally myself. I even think itâs more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for itâat that time and place) if itâs espescially disagreeable/â hostile.
I havenât read Crary but itâs on my list. The headline for McGoeyâs piece is quite harsh, but thereâs no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. âexcuses for the richâ isnât that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positionsâwhilst itâs head for us to hearâit wouldnât be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesnât EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If itâs ultimately good for EA in the endâbring it on! More critcism is good.