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…
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…