Hi Larks, thanks for taking the time to comment. I think your continuum comment is a good contribution to the considerations. Iām going to run with that metaphor, and talk about where I think we should fall. I take this seriously and want to get this right.
Iāve drawn three possible lines for what utility the Forum will get from its position on the continuum. Maybe itās not actually useful, maybe I just like drawing things. I guess my main point is that we donāt have to figure out the entire space, just the local one:
Anyway, the story for the (locally) impersonal position is that adding profile images causes people to pay less attention to the object-level content, and more attention to the person writing. Given that epistemics are one of the top priorities of the Forum, and of EA community building writ-large, this would be quite bad. A substantial sacrifice in our group epistemics would overwhelm nearly all other considerations. I think the crux for me is how large would that effect be?
The story for the social position is that the Forum needs to be an attractive place to comment in order to be used. The Forum is growing now, but many people new to the community donāt use it. Many people experienced in EA read and occasionally comment, but the percentage of the most promising young or new people to the community on the Forum is not what Iād like. When I talk to people about it, they often say that it feels intimidating /ā unfriendly /ā cold. Having a broader reach, and broader participation, will increase the Forumās impact. A crux related to this story is how large an effect this is. Maybe the people talking to me wouldnāt actually join the Forum anyway. Itās fairly long-form discussion, and thatās not for everyone.
ā
A digression into my model of the Forumās impact: In How we think about the Forum (by now 2 years old and not entirely up-to-date), I wrote down the following methods of impact from the Forum:
To my mind, the path to impact that most favors the impersonal position is the second, āDevelopment and refinement of new ideasā. Even small hits to epistemics are incredibly costly when the whole thing youāre trying to do is figure out whatās true. However the Forum does not only try to figure out whatās true. To my mind the biggest effect on the communityās epistemics (and as a whole) comes from spreading our norms to newcomers to the community. This is less valuable (or even negatively valuable) if our epistemics get less good, but it is also impossible if newcomers donāt read the Forum in the first place. All of the items on that list are dependent on more people reading and writing on the Forum.
ā
Overall Iām not sure what my position is right now. Iāll need to think and discuss it some more. Itās plausible that there are other important features with less sign uncertainty that become more important in my mind, but I donāt want to shy away from potentially high-impact features either. Iād be appreciative of other peopleās impressions of how large the effects of my cruxes are.
ā
Some considerations that donāt fall neatly into the continuum analysis:
We can probably mitigate the amount that epistemics are hurt by having a āprofile images off in megathreadsā policy. So that when people start digging into things in posts like the Hinge of History post or emotionally-charged topics, the epistemics can stay relatively unaffected. (This probably doesnāt matter until we put profile images on comments.)
Newbies to the community see a lot of names. Images are generally more recognizable, which can help newbies get a sense of which authors they like. This helps them get drawn in to reading more, and understanding the dynamics of the various positions held by various authors, in the same way that you or I can do because we recognize their names. (āThatās Buck arguing for position X, this makes sense because Iāve already read him supporting similar position Yā) This is I believe related to your āstatistical discriminationā comment.
Hi Larks, thanks for taking the time to comment. I think your continuum comment is a good contribution to the considerations. Iām going to run with that metaphor, and talk about where I think we should fall. I take this seriously and want to get this right.
Iāve drawn three possible lines for what utility the Forum will get from its position on the continuum. Maybe itās not actually useful, maybe I just like drawing things. I guess my main point is that we donāt have to figure out the entire space, just the local one:
Anyway, the story for the (locally) impersonal position is that adding profile images causes people to pay less attention to the object-level content, and more attention to the person writing. Given that epistemics are one of the top priorities of the Forum, and of EA community building writ-large, this would be quite bad. A substantial sacrifice in our group epistemics would overwhelm nearly all other considerations. I think the crux for me is how large would that effect be?
The story for the social position is that the Forum needs to be an attractive place to comment in order to be used. The Forum is growing now, but many people new to the community donāt use it. Many people experienced in EA read and occasionally comment, but the percentage of the most promising young or new people to the community on the Forum is not what Iād like. When I talk to people about it, they often say that it feels intimidating /ā unfriendly /ā cold. Having a broader reach, and broader participation, will increase the Forumās impact. A crux related to this story is how large an effect this is. Maybe the people talking to me wouldnāt actually join the Forum anyway. Itās fairly long-form discussion, and thatās not for everyone.
ā
A digression into my model of the Forumās impact: In How we think about the Forum (by now 2 years old and not entirely up-to-date), I wrote down the following methods of impact from the Forum:
Sharing of existing ideas
Including making common knowledge
Development and refinement of new ideas
Talent discovery
Public accountability
Spreading of norms
Encouraging coordination
To my mind, the path to impact that most favors the impersonal position is the second, āDevelopment and refinement of new ideasā. Even small hits to epistemics are incredibly costly when the whole thing youāre trying to do is figure out whatās true. However the Forum does not only try to figure out whatās true. To my mind the biggest effect on the communityās epistemics (and as a whole) comes from spreading our norms to newcomers to the community. This is less valuable (or even negatively valuable) if our epistemics get less good, but it is also impossible if newcomers donāt read the Forum in the first place. All of the items on that list are dependent on more people reading and writing on the Forum.
ā
Overall Iām not sure what my position is right now. Iāll need to think and discuss it some more. Itās plausible that there are other important features with less sign uncertainty that become more important in my mind, but I donāt want to shy away from potentially high-impact features either. Iād be appreciative of other peopleās impressions of how large the effects of my cruxes are.
ā
Some considerations that donāt fall neatly into the continuum analysis:
We can probably mitigate the amount that epistemics are hurt by having a āprofile images off in megathreadsā policy. So that when people start digging into things in posts like the Hinge of History post or emotionally-charged topics, the epistemics can stay relatively unaffected. (This probably doesnāt matter until we put profile images on comments.)
Newbies to the community see a lot of names. Images are generally more recognizable, which can help newbies get a sense of which authors they like. This helps them get drawn in to reading more, and understanding the dynamics of the various positions held by various authors, in the same way that you or I can do because we recognize their names. (āThatās Buck arguing for position X, this makes sense because Iāve already read him supporting similar position Yā) This is I believe related to your āstatistical discriminationā comment.