Isn’t it somewhat ironic though that you’re caring what the Economist journalists think, and implicitly connoting that that forum post shouldn’t have been made because it gave bad PR?
I just find it funny how posting something like that in a public forum will, of course, make it seen by journalists sooner or later, anyway.
It’s the second bit that concerns me more because I think it’s essentially a correct description of how CEA, and EAs in general (largely because of CEA’s influence), view public engagement. Any interaction outside the community is seen mainly as something that should be handled through a lens of risk mitigation. The way it’s phrased makes it sound like the CEA stopped 78% of 137 virus outbreaks.
Like I wrote elsewhere, I think the danger with the “don’t talk to media” approach is that you get very few views into a movement, mostly from leadership, and if one of those rare appearances takes a wrong turn, there is not a plurality of other views and appearances out there to balance it.
For example, if the only people who “should” give interviews are EA leadership philosophers that are deeply into longtermism, that will make it seem like the entire EA movement is all about longtermism. This is not true.
Isn’t it somewhat ironic though that you’re caring what the Economist journalists think, and implicitly connoting that that forum post shouldn’t have been made because it gave bad PR?
I just find it funny how posting something like that in a public forum will, of course, make it seen by journalists sooner or later, anyway.
It’s the second bit that concerns me more because I think it’s essentially a correct description of how CEA, and EAs in general (largely because of CEA’s influence), view public engagement. Any interaction outside the community is seen mainly as something that should be handled through a lens of risk mitigation. The way it’s phrased makes it sound like the CEA stopped 78% of 137 virus outbreaks.
Like I wrote elsewhere, I think the danger with the “don’t talk to media” approach is that you get very few views into a movement, mostly from leadership, and if one of those rare appearances takes a wrong turn, there is not a plurality of other views and appearances out there to balance it.
For example, if the only people who “should” give interviews are EA leadership philosophers that are deeply into longtermism, that will make it seem like the entire EA movement is all about longtermism. This is not true.