I really think you ought to consider renaming this post given you’ve not even emailed GiveWell yet? It seems like you’re planning to post a series on “concerns with AMF” before asking any follow up questions to anyone. Probably about 1000 people will see the title. There’s some chance you could convince someone to stop donating to AMF just from the title—that tends to be how brains work, even though it isn’t very rational.
I really think you ought to consider renaming this post… Probably about 1000 people will see the title. There’s some chance you could convince someone to stop donating to AMF just from the title—that tends to be how brains work, even though it isn’t very rational.
I think it’s not a good idea to respond to criticism in this way. I imagine myself as an outsider, skeptical of some project, and having supporters of the project tell me, “It’s morally wrong to say we’re not doing good without following our things-to-do-before-critiquing-us checklist, because critiques of us (if improperly done) might cause us to lose support, which is tantamount to causing harm.”
I think this would (and should) make skeptic-me take a dimmer view of the project in question. It’s unconvincing on the object level; to the extent that I already don’t think what you’re doing is valuable, I shouldn’t be moved by arguments about how critiquing it might destroy value. And it pattern-matches to the many other instances of humans organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized, and leveraging the force of moral arguments to do so. Organizations that do this kind of thing are often not truth-seeking and genuinely open to criticism (even when it’s done “properly” by their lights).
I think telling someone not to post criticism without having done X, Y or Z seems bad, but I think asking someone for a title change to make clear that this is a set of concerns one person has come up with rather than e.g. news of an evaluation change from GiveWell is reasonable, and that’s what I read the request as.
Specifically about asking organisations ahead of posting criticism, I think this is a good thing to do, but absolutely shouldn’t be required before posting. In this case, I expect asking someone before posting would have led to a much higher quality post, as the responses from Charles and Linch would almost certainly have come up, and there would have been a chance to discuss them.
I didn’t mean to imply you did, though I see how “human organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized” might sound that way. My sense that it’s bad if posts on the Forum that are critical of AMF get met with this kind of argument doesn’t hinge on whether the person making the argument is involved with AMF or not.
There’s a really interesting meta-point here where it looks like the Europeans broadly agreed that requesting a title change was reasonable (was at +30 karma when I went to sleep) and the West coast EAs disagreed (back down to the original +2 when I woke up).
I disagree on the broader point. I think people, and especially EA, should be grateful for well-considered technical criticism, and we should be especially wary of adding too many roadblocks for criticism.
Minor point:
I really think you ought to consider renaming this post given you’ve not even emailed GiveWell yet?
Shouldn’t the natural organization to give a heads-up for feedback of this sort be the Against Malaria Foundation, and not GiveWell?
This mostly seemed to be a criticism of how GiveWell communicates about AMF rather than of AMF itself, given the author hasn’t even visited AMF’s website yet, but either would make sense.
I really think you ought to consider renaming this post given you’ve not even emailed GiveWell yet? It seems like you’re planning to post a series on “concerns with AMF” before asking any follow up questions to anyone. Probably about 1000 people will see the title. There’s some chance you could convince someone to stop donating to AMF just from the title—that tends to be how brains work, even though it isn’t very rational.
I think it’s not a good idea to respond to criticism in this way. I imagine myself as an outsider, skeptical of some project, and having supporters of the project tell me, “It’s morally wrong to say we’re not doing good without following our things-to-do-before-critiquing-us checklist, because critiques of us (if improperly done) might cause us to lose support, which is tantamount to causing harm.”
I think this would (and should) make skeptic-me take a dimmer view of the project in question. It’s unconvincing on the object level; to the extent that I already don’t think what you’re doing is valuable, I shouldn’t be moved by arguments about how critiquing it might destroy value. And it pattern-matches to the many other instances of humans organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized, and leveraging the force of moral arguments to do so. Organizations that do this kind of thing are often not truth-seeking and genuinely open to criticism (even when it’s done “properly” by their lights).
I think telling someone not to post criticism without having done X, Y or Z seems bad, but I think asking someone for a title change to make clear that this is a set of concerns one person has come up with rather than e.g. news of an evaluation change from GiveWell is reasonable, and that’s what I read the request as.
Specifically about asking organisations ahead of posting criticism, I think this is a good thing to do, but absolutely shouldn’t be required before posting. In this case, I expect asking someone before posting would have led to a much higher quality post, as the responses from Charles and Linch would almost certainly have come up, and there would have been a chance to discuss them.
I literally have nothing to do with AMF, I just think the title is bad and not representative of the post.
I didn’t mean to imply you did, though I see how “human organizations wanting to dictate the terms on which they can be criticized” might sound that way. My sense that it’s bad if posts on the Forum that are critical of AMF get met with this kind of argument doesn’t hinge on whether the person making the argument is involved with AMF or not.
There’s a really interesting meta-point here where it looks like the Europeans broadly agreed that requesting a title change was reasonable (was at +30 karma when I went to sleep) and the West coast EAs disagreed (back down to the original +2 when I woke up).
I disagree on the broader point. I think people, and especially EA, should be grateful for well-considered technical criticism, and we should be especially wary of adding too many roadblocks for criticism.
Minor point:
Shouldn’t the natural organization to give a heads-up for feedback of this sort be the Against Malaria Foundation, and not GiveWell?
This mostly seemed to be a criticism of how GiveWell communicates about AMF rather than of AMF itself, given the author hasn’t even visited AMF’s website yet, but either would make sense.