Thank you. I was not suggesting that your post should include data. I was only trying to find resources I could use to know more about the growth and the spread. Based on your responses and also the fact that you have not mentioned any specific references, I assume the sentence was of the nature of a dramatic entry point expressing an opinion/ impression about EA growth and world-wide spread.
The reason I asked was because I keep hearing such sentences—about EA being global and about its rapid/ exploding growth. But I have not yet been able to get any actual data to substantiate this. Every time I have chased up, it has always been impressions, or quoting others who quote others and so on. The only actual discussion I found on this is this thread on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/969102686479422/ which doesn’t seem as exciting as a storm. They are, in the words of one commentator, “a steady, moderate growth”. In fact, as Tom Ash says at one place: “The numbers you’ve provided do constitute evidence against claims that EA has undergone explosive growth, though as others have noted they do suggest it’s seen steady growth, at least in terms of interest. It would likewise be helpful for someone to provide hard numbers and evidence to justify the common claim that the EA movement is growing fast in both numbers and impact. Anyone up for doing that?”
I was hoping to get some references from you to further peruse the topic. Thanks anyway.
I see your point, but I used the language I did because this was originally posted on my blog, which is primarily about my PhD (space science research). I used a bit of poetic/creative license because it’s more engaging than saying something like ‘a movement called EA is undergoing a steady, moderate growth’. I’m comfortable saying that because, to me, it doesn’t seem inherently misleading, and it’s a very common technique in many forms of public writing.
In terms of EA’s actual growth, I can only speak in rather vague terms, most of which have already been covered in the post you linked.
Yeah, to excite a popular audience so some small fraction start looking into EA, a bit of poetic license could be appropriate. ‘Explosive’ is a term you can stretch pretty far. If I were writing an academic paper, I’d say “A movement called EA is undergoing a steady, moderate growth!” But you weren’t doing that; you just happened to cross-post here, where there’s no perceived need to big up EA, and for good or ill people often apply academic-style standards.
Yes, I see your points, and appreciate them. That is definitely one way of looking at it: exciting and attracting others. A dramatic sentence provides a good entry into an article around advocacy, and I suspect that most people would take that sentence as a fact, and not examine it. They may be enthused, and peruse more, etc etc.
I take a somewhat different view. My view is that someone slightly more data-driven (the profile you aim at?) may start looking around, and find very little evidence for the statement. Such a person may wonder why use drama, and whether the movement does not have enough factual backing to attract data-driven persons (like I did). Given that so much of EA is about critically examining claims of other movements and of charities to say, look at data, not emotional hooks, this seems more odd. For example, would stretching “explosive” be considered a valid approach if applied by a charity that is ineffective?
Basically, I am not sure whether attracting persons less inclined to examine (and question) dramatic claims is good for EA or bad.
It really depends on who you aim at. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
NB: Maybe people can be attracted and excited using data presented attractively, and not by stretching terms?
NB-2: The above thought-sharing/ personal observation is related to general writing in EA and in this forum, and not about the specific post or sentence…
To clarify, I wasn’t saying that was necessary, or worth the time. :) Your flag that it was a cross-post does the job, perhaps with an explicit mention that this is “aimed at a different audience”, etc.
Perhaps at least specify which countries you are including in the world, or how “slow” and “storm” mesh together?
But even if not in an intro… is there such data?
There are estimates, but I’m really not sure it’s relevant for the post.
Thank you. I was not suggesting that your post should include data. I was only trying to find resources I could use to know more about the growth and the spread. Based on your responses and also the fact that you have not mentioned any specific references, I assume the sentence was of the nature of a dramatic entry point expressing an opinion/ impression about EA growth and world-wide spread.
The reason I asked was because I keep hearing such sentences—about EA being global and about its rapid/ exploding growth. But I have not yet been able to get any actual data to substantiate this. Every time I have chased up, it has always been impressions, or quoting others who quote others and so on. The only actual discussion I found on this is this thread on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/969102686479422/ which doesn’t seem as exciting as a storm. They are, in the words of one commentator, “a steady, moderate growth”. In fact, as Tom Ash says at one place: “The numbers you’ve provided do constitute evidence against claims that EA has undergone explosive growth, though as others have noted they do suggest it’s seen steady growth, at least in terms of interest. It would likewise be helpful for someone to provide hard numbers and evidence to justify the common claim that the EA movement is growing fast in both numbers and impact. Anyone up for doing that?”
I was hoping to get some references from you to further peruse the topic. Thanks anyway.
I see your point, but I used the language I did because this was originally posted on my blog, which is primarily about my PhD (space science research). I used a bit of poetic/creative license because it’s more engaging than saying something like ‘a movement called EA is undergoing a steady, moderate growth’. I’m comfortable saying that because, to me, it doesn’t seem inherently misleading, and it’s a very common technique in many forms of public writing.
In terms of EA’s actual growth, I can only speak in rather vague terms, most of which have already been covered in the post you linked.
Yeah, to excite a popular audience so some small fraction start looking into EA, a bit of poetic license could be appropriate. ‘Explosive’ is a term you can stretch pretty far. If I were writing an academic paper, I’d say “A movement called EA is undergoing a steady, moderate growth!” But you weren’t doing that; you just happened to cross-post here, where there’s no perceived need to big up EA, and for good or ill people often apply academic-style standards.
Yes, I see your points, and appreciate them. That is definitely one way of looking at it: exciting and attracting others. A dramatic sentence provides a good entry into an article around advocacy, and I suspect that most people would take that sentence as a fact, and not examine it. They may be enthused, and peruse more, etc etc.
I take a somewhat different view. My view is that someone slightly more data-driven (the profile you aim at?) may start looking around, and find very little evidence for the statement. Such a person may wonder why use drama, and whether the movement does not have enough factual backing to attract data-driven persons (like I did). Given that so much of EA is about critically examining claims of other movements and of charities to say, look at data, not emotional hooks, this seems more odd. For example, would stretching “explosive” be considered a valid approach if applied by a charity that is ineffective?
Basically, I am not sure whether attracting persons less inclined to examine (and question) dramatic claims is good for EA or bad.
It really depends on who you aim at. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
NB: Maybe people can be attracted and excited using data presented attractively, and not by stretching terms?
NB-2: The above thought-sharing/ personal observation is related to general writing in EA and in this forum, and not about the specific post or sentence…
Agreed Tom. I did think about modifying the post for this forum but decided against it for consistency. I may do just that next time.
To clarify, I wasn’t saying that was necessary, or worth the time. :) Your flag that it was a cross-post does the job, perhaps with an explicit mention that this is “aimed at a different audience”, etc.
Here is some data that just got released. http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/darkruby501/OrphanCode/blob/master/EAFBGroupPosts/EA%20Facebook%20Group%20-%20Sociograph%20Analysis%20%2715.ipynb