Taking as a given that EA is an imperfect movement (like every other movement), it’s worth considering whether external criticism should be taken on board, rather than PR managed. For example the accusations of cultiness may be exaggerated, but I think there is a grain of truth there, in terms of the amount of unneccesary jargon, odd rituals (like pseudo-bayesian updating), and extreme overconfidence in very shaky assumptions.
Point taken, though EA seems to welcome criticisms a lot to the point of giving out large prizes for good criticisms. Scott Alexander also argues that EA actually goes too far in taking criticisms on board.
I entirely agree, in fact I think that an important part of taking care of how we’re perceived is changing things internally (and not just managing PR).
Nevertheless I think that there’s an importance to how we’re perceived even in face of baseless criticism.
Taking as a given that EA is an imperfect movement (like every other movement), it’s worth considering whether external criticism should be taken on board, rather than PR managed. For example the accusations of cultiness may be exaggerated, but I think there is a grain of truth there, in terms of the amount of unneccesary jargon, odd rituals (like pseudo-bayesian updating), and extreme overconfidence in very shaky assumptions.
Point taken, though EA seems to welcome criticisms a lot to the point of giving out large prizes for good criticisms. Scott Alexander also argues that EA actually goes too far in taking criticisms on board.
I would rather gloss that article as “EA pays too much attention to one kind of criticism: vague systemic paradigmatic insinuation”.
I entirely agree, in fact I think that an important part of taking care of how we’re perceived is changing things internally (and not just managing PR). Nevertheless I think that there’s an importance to how we’re perceived even in face of baseless criticism.