I think my main point is that we don’t talk accurately about this issue. There isn’t lots of evidence and yet many comments seem to me to imply that EA is unusually bad. That seems bad to me.
I also think that’s why there are so many critical comments, because if you’d simply asked a specific comparative question whilst being perfectly clear about your aims and what you meant, I don’t think there would be any such comments, or at least far fewer of them. (I may be wrong; that’s just my current view.)
I don’t think I’m capable of raising this issue in a way that didn’t get critical comments. Personally I think that’s an EA problem. But perhaps it’s a me problem. Suffice it to say that I spent a reasonable amount of time, rewrote it several times, looked for more data, showed it to friends. To me it seems like a pretty uncontroversial piece.
If someone wrote a piece about a charity and this was the response—ill-defined methodological criticisms which aren’t followed up but are then repeatedly referenced, requests for the piece to be presented differently, implications about the author’s intent, multiple disagreeing viewpoints on why the piece is bad, claims that the piece is both wrong and that the central point is anodyne—do you think you’d think that was the fault of the author, or would you think there was something else going on.
I don’t think I’m capable of raising this issue in a way that didn’t get critical comments...Suffice it to say that I spent a reasonable amount of time, rewrote it several times, looked for more data, showed it to friends. To me it seems like a pretty uncontroversial piece.
Did the friends you shared this with you all agree with you that this was a pretty uncontroversial piece that wasn’t likely to get critical comments? If so I think probably worth sharing with a broader set of people for feedback in future, as I think this pushback was reasonably predictable. Not saying that posts aren’t worth making if you get critical comments, but insofar as this is something you want to minimise, as it sounds like you were clearly trying to do this.
Separately if it’s a useful data point, reading these comments made me not wish to engage with this piece at the object level, at least at the moment
If someone wrote a piece about a charity and this was the response—ill-defined methodological criticisms which aren’t followed up but are then repeatedly referenced, requests for the piece to be presented differently, implications about the author’s intent, multiple disagreeing viewpoints on why the piece is bad, claims that the piece is both wrong and that the central point is anodyne—do you think you’d think that was the fault of the author, or would you think there was something else going on.
First of all, thank you for your thought experiment; I think it’s a good approach.
However, when constructing a thought experiment (or a comparison) intended to highlight a lack of consistency, for it to be relevant, it must have the same mechanics and/or structure as the subject of the discussion, thereby highlighting a difference in treatment (i.e., an inconsistency or a “double standard”).
Why is structure important, in my view? Because otherwise, taking it to the extreme, one could also say, “Someone spoke a sentence last time and you didn’t react the same way, yet in both cases they are sentences.” ; here the comparison is flawed as a way to point out an inconsistency because the relevant level of structure is not “a sentence”; one must move to a richer level of structure to characterize the phenomenon and then point out the supposed inconsistency.
From my perspective, the key structure is as follows:
An internal article within an organization, intended for its members and discussing its management (related to point 4)
An article that highlights significant ethical conduct in a type of action carried out by the organization’s members and/or structures
An article that compares the organization’s operations to those of other organizations.
An article that expresses ambiguity on the subject: “So, ultimately, it’s okay; there’s no reason to say it’s terrible—we’re not doing much worse than others on this issue (point 2)”
We can discuss the structure I’m proposing, but this is currently how I see the relevant structure for comparison.
For example, an important moral issue might be veganism at group meals: I don’t know if I expect it to be well received. (Actually, I know I’m pretty sure it won’t be.) Or racism, or accessibility for people with disabilities, or managing the spread of an epidemic, etc.
I can’t imagine a very warm reception in any of these cases, and in each case the problem seems to me to be structurally the overlap between 2 and 4 (requiring 1 and 3 to function—that’s why they’re there).
Even though, as I said, I find the question interesting, and I believe I have addressed the substance of it in my previous comment. But addressing the substance doesn’t preclude elaborating on the form as well; this is relevant insofar as it concerns something real that will have a significant impact.
I think my main point is that we don’t talk accurately about this issue. There isn’t lots of evidence and yet many comments seem to me to imply that EA is unusually bad. That seems bad to me.
I don’t think I’m capable of raising this issue in a way that didn’t get critical comments. Personally I think that’s an EA problem. But perhaps it’s a me problem. Suffice it to say that I spent a reasonable amount of time, rewrote it several times, looked for more data, showed it to friends. To me it seems like a pretty uncontroversial piece.
If someone wrote a piece about a charity and this was the response—ill-defined methodological criticisms which aren’t followed up but are then repeatedly referenced, requests for the piece to be presented differently, implications about the author’s intent, multiple disagreeing viewpoints on why the piece is bad, claims that the piece is both wrong and that the central point is anodyne—do you think you’d think that was the fault of the author, or would you think there was something else going on.
Did the friends you shared this with you all agree with you that this was a pretty uncontroversial piece that wasn’t likely to get critical comments? If so I think probably worth sharing with a broader set of people for feedback in future, as I think this pushback was reasonably predictable. Not saying that posts aren’t worth making if you get critical comments, but insofar as this is something you want to minimise, as it sounds like you were clearly trying to do this.
Separately if it’s a useful data point, reading these comments made me not wish to engage with this piece at the object level, at least at the moment
1, 2, 3, 4
No, they thought it was controversial, but I took on board many suggestions to soften it.
So in your view I’m being defensive/unpleasant in the comments? Or at least significantly more so?
First of all, thank you for your thought experiment; I think it’s a good approach.
However, when constructing a thought experiment (or a comparison) intended to highlight a lack of consistency, for it to be relevant, it must have the same mechanics and/or structure as the subject of the discussion, thereby highlighting a difference in treatment (i.e., an inconsistency or a “double standard”).
Why is structure important, in my view?
Because otherwise, taking it to the extreme, one could also say, “Someone spoke a sentence last time and you didn’t react the same way, yet in both cases they are sentences.” ; here the comparison is flawed as a way to point out an inconsistency because the relevant level of structure is not “a sentence”; one must move to a richer level of structure to characterize the phenomenon and then point out the supposed inconsistency.
From my perspective, the key structure is as follows:
An internal article within an organization, intended for its members and discussing its management (related to point 4)
An article that highlights significant ethical conduct in a type of action carried out by the organization’s members and/or structures
An article that compares the organization’s operations to those of other organizations.
An article that expresses ambiguity on the subject: “So, ultimately, it’s okay; there’s no reason to say it’s terrible—we’re not doing much worse than others on this issue (point 2)”
We can discuss the structure I’m proposing, but this is currently how I see the relevant structure for comparison.
For example, an important moral issue might be veganism at group meals: I don’t know if I expect it to be well received. (Actually, I know I’m pretty sure it won’t be.)
Or racism, or accessibility for people with disabilities, or managing the spread of an epidemic, etc.
I can’t imagine a very warm reception in any of these cases, and in each case the problem seems to me to be structurally the overlap between 2 and 4 (requiring 1 and 3 to function—that’s why they’re there).
Even though, as I said, I find the question interesting, and I believe I have addressed the substance of it in my previous comment.
But addressing the substance doesn’t preclude elaborating on the form as well; this is relevant insofar as it concerns something real that will have a significant impact.