> I guess I’ve always taken it for granted that I would need to be persuasive too
I don’t mind having to be persuasive, my problem is that EA leadership is not available or open to hearing arguments. It doesn’t matter how persuasive one is if you can’t get into EAG, or break into the narrow social circles that the high-powered EAs hang out in.
Looking at Buck’s comment above, he makes it clear that the leadership doesn’t take EA forum comments or arguments here seriously, which is fair as they are busy.
I think we need better mechanisms to surface criticisms to decision makers overall.
I’m not sure I agree with this? I think “EA leadership” probably isn’t that open to arguments from unknown people. But if you show up and say sensible things you pretty quickly get listened to. I think that’s about as good as we can hope for: we can’t expect busy people to listen to every random piece of input; and it’s not that unreasonable to expect people to show up and do some good work before they get listened to.
I didn’t quite read him as saying that he didn’t take forum posts seriously, just that it wasn’t really written to engage people who disagreed with these ideas.
But we definitely figure out if there’s any other better mechanisms of floating ideas to the top.
My take on Buck’s comment is that he didn’t update from this post because it’s too high level and doesn’t actually argue for most of its object level proposals. I have a similar reaction to Buck where I evaluate a lot of the proposals to be pretty bad, and since they haven’t argued much for them and I don’t feel much like arguing against them. I think Buck was pretty helpful in saying (what I interpret to mean) “I would be able to reply more if you argued for object level suggestions and engaged more deeply with the suggestions you’re bringing”
> I guess I’ve always taken it for granted that I would need to be persuasive too
I don’t mind having to be persuasive, my problem is that EA leadership is not available or open to hearing arguments. It doesn’t matter how persuasive one is if you can’t get into EAG, or break into the narrow social circles that the high-powered EAs hang out in.
Looking at Buck’s comment above, he makes it clear that the leadership doesn’t take EA forum comments or arguments here seriously, which is fair as they are busy.
I think we need better mechanisms to surface criticisms to decision makers overall.
I’m not sure I agree with this? I think “EA leadership” probably isn’t that open to arguments from unknown people. But if you show up and say sensible things you pretty quickly get listened to. I think that’s about as good as we can hope for: we can’t expect busy people to listen to every random piece of input; and it’s not that unreasonable to expect people to show up and do some good work before they get listened to.
I didn’t quite read him as saying that he didn’t take forum posts seriously, just that it wasn’t really written to engage people who disagreed with these ideas.
But we definitely figure out if there’s any other better mechanisms of floating ideas to the top.
My take on Buck’s comment is that he didn’t update from this post because it’s too high level and doesn’t actually argue for most of its object level proposals. I have a similar reaction to Buck where I evaluate a lot of the proposals to be pretty bad, and since they haven’t argued much for them and I don’t feel much like arguing against them.
I think Buck was pretty helpful in saying (what I interpret to mean) “I would be able to reply more if you argued for object level suggestions and engaged more deeply with the suggestions you’re bringing”