Below is my reply to this comment and your other one.
I’m not sure this is valuable or wise for me to write all this, but it seems better to communicate.
I was sincere about when I said I didn’t understand and wanted to learn why you rated Guzey’s criticism highly. I think I learned a lot more now.
_________________________
You said “This part sounds deeply wrong to me, but that’s probably because I’ve read more of Guzey’s work besides this one piece”:
Note that I made a writing error in the relevant paragraph. It is possible this changed the meaning of my comment and this rightfully offended you. When I said:
Even rounding down all of the other things that are negative signals to me, this fixation on this episode after these years seems like a strong sign to me, and most people I know, of the low value of the ideas from this person.
I meant:
Even rounding down all of the other things that are negative signals to me, this fixation on this episode after these years would be a strong signal to me, and would be a strong signal to most people I know, of the low value of the ideas from this person.
The first version could imply there is some “establishment” (yuck) and that these people share my negative opinion. This is incorrect, I had no other prior knowledge of opinions about Guzey and knew nothing about him.
_________________________
You said here:
I occasionally encounter people who would have been happy to burn their youth and spend their efforts on projects that would good bets from an EA perspective. When they don’t get to for one reason or another (maybe they were being too status-seeking too soon, maybe they would have been a great chief of staff or a co-founder together with someone who was epistemically stronger, maybe they didn’t have the right support networks, etc.), it strikes me as regrettable.
I think that some of Guzey’s later work is valuable, and in particular his New Science organization looks like a good bet to take. I think he got some funding from the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which is EA adjacent.
This seems wise and thoughtful. I didn’t know about this.
_________________________
You made another comment:
I find it surprising that your comment only provides one-sided considerations. As an intuition pump, consider reading this unrelated review, also by Guzey, and checking if you think it is also low quality.
I skimmed this, in the spirit of what you suggested. The truth is that I find reviews like this often on the internet, and I use reviews of this quality for a lot of beliefs.
If I didn’t know anything about Guzey, I would use his review to update in favor his ideas. But at the same time, I find many of Guzey’s choices in content and style different than people who successfully advance scientific arguments.
_________________________
I think that, combined with virtue and good judgement, being loyal to someone is good.
In non-EA contexts, I have tried to back up friends who need support in hostile situations.
In these situations, the truth is that I can become strategic. When being strategic, I try to minimize or even rewrite the content where they were wrong. This can lead to compromise and closure, but this needs coordination and maturity.
Below is my reply to this comment and your other one.
I’m not sure this is valuable or wise for me to write all this, but it seems better to communicate.
I was sincere about when I said I didn’t understand and wanted to learn why you rated Guzey’s criticism highly. I think I learned a lot more now.
_________________________
You said “This part sounds deeply wrong to me, but that’s probably because I’ve read more of Guzey’s work besides this one piece”:
Note that I made a writing error in the relevant paragraph. It is possible this changed the meaning of my comment and this rightfully offended you. When I said:
I meant:
The first version could imply there is some “establishment” (yuck) and that these people share my negative opinion. This is incorrect, I had no other prior knowledge of opinions about Guzey and knew nothing about him.
_________________________
You said here:
This seems wise and thoughtful. I didn’t know about this.
_________________________
You made another comment:
I skimmed this, in the spirit of what you suggested. The truth is that I find reviews like this often on the internet, and I use reviews of this quality for a lot of beliefs.
If I didn’t know anything about Guzey, I would use his review to update in favor his ideas. But at the same time, I find many of Guzey’s choices in content and style different than people who successfully advance scientific arguments.
_________________________
I think that, combined with virtue and good judgement, being loyal to someone is good.
In non-EA contexts, I have tried to back up friends who need support in hostile situations.
In these situations, the truth is that I can become strategic. When being strategic, I try to minimize or even rewrite the content where they were wrong. This can lead to compromise and closure, but this needs coordination and maturity.