(My thanks to the post authors, velutvulpes and juliakarbing, for transcribing and adding a talk to the EA Forum, comments below refer to the contents of the talk).
I gave this a decade review downvote and wanted to set out why.
Reinventing the wheel
I think this is on the whole a decent talk that sets out an personal individualâs journey through EA and working out how they can do the most good.
However I think the talk involves some amount of âreinventing the wheelâ (ignoring and attempting to duplicate existing research).
In the talk Hilary raises the problem of clueless and discusses five possible solutions to this problem. The problem (at least as it is defined in this talk here) appears to relate to having confidence in decisions made under situations of uncertainty, where there are hard/âimpossible to measure factors.
Now the rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty (uncertainty about options, probabilities, values, unknown unknowns, etc) is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, and how confident to be, etc.
Hilary does not reference any of that work or flag it to the reader at any point in her talk. I honestly think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/âcluelessness really should be drawing on some of that existing literature.
Does this matter?
Normally this should not be a big deal, EA authors reinvent the wheel all the time (this survey suggests it is EAâs No1 top flaw) so avoiding this is a very high bar to hold an author/âspeaker too. However I think in this specific instance it appears to have sown confusion and and been harmful to EA discussions of this topic. It has been my impression EA readers are very aware of practical decision making challenges of cluessness but very unaware of the research and solutions.
Ultimately this is very subjective claim. Some additional supporting evidence might be things like:
Talking to people who work in longtermist research in multiple EA organisations have expressed similar views and concerns.
There are many anecdotal cases of EAâs discussion cluelessness but not the solutions. (Even in the comments below Pablo says âIn your follow-up comment, you say that the problem âhas reasonable solutionsâ, though I am personally not aware of any such solutionâ).
Searches of the site show 327 pages on the EA Forum that mention âcluelessnessâ. Compared to 21 for robust decision making. 37 for sequence thinking. 82 for Knightian uncertainty. 166 for âDeep Uncertaintyâ. Etc
Suggested follow up.
One interesting solution might that whenever referring to practical decision making challenges, the term âclulessnessâ (which appears to be a niche philosophical term) could be replaced with terms more common in the decision making literature, such as âdeep uncertaintyâ or âknightian uncertaintyâ; for example on the EA wiki or in future posts.
NOTE: This review has been edited to reflect comments below. Will post the initial review below as well for prosperity. See here.
Unfortunately this author has had the bad luck that her new terminology stuck. And it stuck pretty hard.
The term âcluelessnessâ has been used in the philosophical literature for decades, to refer to the specific and well-defined problem faced by consequentialism and other moral theories which take future consequences into account. Greavesâs talk is a contribution to that literature. She wasnât even the first to use the term in EA contexts; I believe Amanda Askell and probably other EAs were discussing cluelessness years before this talk.
Yes you are correct. I am not an expert here but my best guess is the story is something like
âMoral cluelessnessâ was a philosophical term that has been around for a while.
Hilary borrow the philosophy term and extended it to discuss âcomplex clulessnessâ (which a quick Google makes me think is a term she invented).
âcomplex cluelessnessâ is essentially identical to âdeep uncertaintyâ and such concepts (at least as far as I can tell from reading her work, I think it was this paper I read) .
This and other articles then shorthanded âcomplex cluelessnessâ to just âcluelessnessâ.
I am not sure exactly, happy to be corrected. So maybe not an invented term but maybe a borrowed, slightly changed and then rephrased term. Or something like that. It all gets a bit confusing.
And sorry for picking on this talk if Hilary was just borrowing ideas from others, just saw it on the Decade Review list.
â â
Either way I donât think this changes the point of my review. It is of course totally fine to invent /â reinvent /â borrow terminology, (in fact in academic philosophy it is almost a requirement as far as I can tell). And it is of course fine for philosophers to talk like philosophers. I just think sometimes adding new jargon to the EA space can cause more confusion than clarity, and this has been one of those times. I think in this case it would have been much better if EA had got into the habit of using the more common widely used terminology that is more applicable to this topic (this specific topic is not, as far as I can tell, a problem where philosophy has done the bulk of the work to date).
And insofar as the decade review is about reviewing what has been useful 1+ years later I would say this is a nice post that has in actuality turned out unfortunately to be dis-useful /â net harmful. Not trying to place blame. Maybe there is just a lesson for all of us on being cautious on introducing terminology.
Iâm open to the possibility that there are terms better than âcluelessnessâ to refer to the problem Hilary discusses in her talk. Perhaps we could continue this discussion elsewhere, such as on the âtalkâ page of the cluelessness Wiki entry (note that the entry is currently just a stub)?
As noted, the term has been used in philosophy for quite some time. So if equivalent or related expressions exist in other disciplines, the question is, âWhich of these terms should we settle for?â Whereas you make it seem like using âcluelessnessâ requires a special justification, relative to the other choices.
Since Hilary didnât introduce the term, either in philosophy or in EA, it seems inappropriate to evaluate her talk negatively, even granting that it would have been desirable if a term other than âcluelessnessâ had become established.
Separately, I think Hilaryâs talk is a valuable contribution to the problem, so I donât think it warrants a negative evaluation. (But maybe you disagree and your views about the substance of the talk also influenced your assessment? In your follow-up comment, you say that the problem âhas reasonable solutionsâ, though I am personally not aware of any such solution.)
The EA Forum wiki has talk pages!! Wow you learn something new every day :-)
Separately, I think Hilaryâs talk is a valuable contribution to the problem, so I donât think it warrants a negative evaluation
Yes I think that is ultimately the thing we disagree on. And perhaps it is one of those subjective things that we will always disagree on (e.g. maybe different life experiences means you read some content as new and exciting and I read the same thing as old and repetitive).
If I had to condense why I didnât think it is a valuable contribution is it looks to me (given my background) that it is reinventing the wheel.
The rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty about the impact of those decisions (uncertainty about what the options are, what the probabilities are, how to decide, what is even valuable ect) in the face of unknown unknowns, etc â is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, etc.
I think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/âcluelessness really should draw on some of that literature (before dismissing options like âmake bolder estimatesâ /â âmake the analysis more sophisticatedâ) . Otherwise it would be like trying to reinvent the wheel, suggesting it should be square and then concluding it cannot be done and wheels donât work.
Hope that explains where I am coming from.
(PS. To reiterate, in Hilaryâs defense, EAs reinvent wheels all the time. No1 top flaw and all that. I just think this specific case has lead to lots of confusion. Eg people thinking there is no good research into uncertainty management)
Just to build on what Pablo has been saying, the term âcluelessnessâ goes back to at least 2000 where James Lenman used it specifically as an argument against consequentialism. Hilary in her 2016 paper was responding specifically to Lenmanâs critique, so it seems fair that she used the term cluelessness there, and in this particular talk. She was indeed the first person to draw a distinction between âsimpleâ and âcomplexâ cluelessness.
By the way, in that paper Hilary has a footnote saying:
Here I am in agreement with Smart (1973, p.34), Kagan (1998, p.63) and Mason (2004), each of whom initially raises the issue of cluelessness in the context of consequentialism, but then notes that in fact the problem affects a much wider class of moral theories. In contrast, many others appear to regard the problem as peculiar to consequentialism (including: Norcross (1990), Lenman (2000), Cowen (2006), Feldman (2006), Dorsey (2012), Burch-Brown (2014)).
So the term may go all the way back to Smart in 1973 but I canât be certain as I canât access the specific text cited.
Regarding other terms such as Knightian Uncertainty. Iâm far from sure about all this, but Knightian uncertainty seems something that we can work around and account for within a particular ethical framework (say consequentialism) through various toolsâas you imply. However, cluelessness is an argument against ethical frameworks themselves, including consequentialism. In this case these seem very different concepts that rightly are referred to differently. (EDIT: although admittedly cluelessness has become something we are trying to work around within a consequentialist framework so youâre not entirely wrong...).
Sure, âcluelessnessâ is a long standing philosophical term that is âan argument against ethical frameworks themselves, including consequentialismâ. Very happy to accept that.
But that doesnât seem to be the case here in this talk. Hilary says âhow confident should we be really that the cost-effectiveness analysis weâve got is any decent guide at all to how we should be spending our money? Thatâs the worry that I call âcluelessnessââ. This seems to be a practical decision making problem.
Which is why it looks like to me that a term has been borrowed from philosophy, and used in another context. (And even if it was never the intent to do so it seems to me that people in EA took the term to be used as pointing to the practical decision making challenges of making decisions under uncertainty.)
Borrowing terms happens all the time but unfortunately in this case it appears to have caused some confusion along the way. It would have been simpler to use the keep the philosophy term in the philosophy box to talk about topics such as the limits of knowledge and so on, and to use one of the terms from decision making (like âdeep uncertaintyâ) to talk about practical issues like making decisions about where to donate given the things we donât know, and kept everything nice and simple.
But also it is not really a big deal. Kind of confusing /â pet peeve level, but no-one uses the right words all the time, I certainly donât. (If there is a thing this post does badly it is the reinventing the wheel point, see my response to Pablo above, and the word choice is a part of that broader confusion about how to approach uncertainty).
To be a bit more concrete, I spend my time talking to politicians, policy makers, risk mangers, climate scientists, military strategists, activists. I think most of these people would understand âdeep uncertaintyâ and âwicked problemâ but less so âcluelessnessâ. I think they would mean the same thing by this term as this post means by âcluelessnessâ. I think the fact that âcluelessnessâ became the popular term in EA has made things a bit more challenging for me.
I recognise that expecting people to police their language against the possibility some term they introduce their audience to is suboptimal is a high bar. Philosophers use philosophy language and that is obviously fine. I just wish âcluelessnessâ hadnât been the term that seemed to stick in EA and that one of these other words had been used (and also I think that the talk could have benefited from recognising that this is an issue that gets attention and has reasonable solutions outside of philosophy).
My understanding is that âcomplex cluelessnessâ is not essentially identical toâdeep uncertaintyâ, although âdeep uncertaintyâ could mean a few things and Iâm not sure exactly what you have in mind.
My understanding is also that the term is not essentially identical to âuncertaintyâ âKnightian uncertaintyâ âwicked problemsâ âextreme model uncertaintyâ or âfragile credencesâ
I do however think that EAs often use the term âcluelessnessâ incorrectly in a way that makes it more similar to these other terms. I think this is because cluelessness is a confusing topic to wrap ones head around correctly.
Hmmm ⌠I am not sure what it means that EAs use the term âcluelessnessâ incorrectly. I honestly never hear the term used outside of EA. So have been I assuming the way EAs use it is the only way (and hence correct), so maybe I have been using it incorrectly.
Would love some more clarity if you have time to provide it!
As far as I can tell
âcomplex clulessnessâ as defined by Hilary here just seems to be one specific form of (or maybe specific way of rephrasing) deep uncertainty , so a subcategory of âKnightian uncertaintyâ as defined by Wikipedia or âDeep uncertaintyâ as defined here.
âclulessnessâ as it is most commonly used by EAs seems to be the same as âKnightian uncertaintyâ as defined by Wikipedia or âdeep uncertaintyâ as defined here.
(My thanks to the post authors, velutvulpes and juliakarbing, for transcribing and adding a talk to the EA Forum, comments below refer to the contents of the talk).
I gave this a decade review downvote and wanted to set out why.
I think this is on the whole a decent talk that sets out an personal individualâs journey through EA and working out how they can do the most good.
It does however do a little bit of reinventing of the wheel. Now EAs across the board can, I think fairly, be criticised for reinventing the wheel. In fact this survey of 40 EA leaders found that âThe biggest concern and a trend that came up again and again was that EAs tend to reinvent the wheel a lotâ. In this talk (and other work) the author defines and introduces the idea of âcluelessnessâ. This serves a purpose but it is done without any mention of the myriad of existing terminologies that essentially mean the same thing, such as âuncertaintyâ âdeep uncertaintyâ âKnightian uncertaintyâ âwicked problemsâ âextreme model uncertaintyâ âfragile credencesâ etc. The author then suggests 5 responses to cluelessness without mentioning the decades of research that have gone into the above topics and the existing ways humans deal with these issues.
Ultimately this should not a big deal. We all invent terminology from time to time, or borrow from domains we are familiar with to explain what is on our mind. It is not a big sin and can normally be shrugged off.
Unfortunately this author has had the bad luck that her new terminology stuck. And it stuck pretty hard. There is a âcluelessnessâ tag on the EA wiki and over 450 pages on the EA Forum that mention âcluelessnessâ. Reflecting back, and talking to other EAs a year later, I think this [edit: invented] term may have been harmful for EA discourse. I expect it has lead to people being unaware of the troves of academic (and other) work done to date on managing high levels of uncertainty and managing risks to confusion and ongoing wheel reinventing.
Suggested follow up (if any) might be things like replacing the âclulessnessâ wiki page with another term and for people to stop using the term as much as possible.
(My thanks to the post authors, velutvulpes and juliakarbing, for transcribing and adding a talk to the EA Forum, comments below refer to the contents of the talk).
I gave this a decade review downvote and wanted to set out why.
Reinventing the wheel
I think this is on the whole a decent talk that sets out an personal individualâs journey through EA and working out how they can do the most good.
However I think the talk involves some amount of âreinventing the wheelâ (ignoring and attempting to duplicate existing research).
In the talk Hilary raises the problem of clueless and discusses five possible solutions to this problem. The problem (at least as it is defined in this talk here) appears to relate to having confidence in decisions made under situations of uncertainty, where there are hard/âimpossible to measure factors.
Now the rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty (uncertainty about options, probabilities, values, unknown unknowns, etc) is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, and how confident to be, etc.
Hilary does not reference any of that work or flag it to the reader at any point in her talk. I honestly think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/âcluelessness really should be drawing on some of that existing literature.
Does this matter?
Normally this should not be a big deal, EA authors reinvent the wheel all the time (this survey suggests it is EAâs No1 top flaw) so avoiding this is a very high bar to hold an author/âspeaker too. However I think in this specific instance it appears to have sown confusion and and been harmful to EA discussions of this topic. It has been my impression EA readers are very aware of practical decision making challenges of cluessness but very unaware of the research and solutions.
Ultimately this is very subjective claim. Some additional supporting evidence might be things like:
Talking to people who work in longtermist research in multiple EA organisations have expressed similar views and concerns.
There are many anecdotal cases of EAâs discussion cluelessness but not the solutions. (Even in the comments below Pablo says âIn your follow-up comment, you say that the problem âhas reasonable solutionsâ, though I am personally not aware of any such solutionâ).
Searches of the site show 327 pages on the EA Forum that mention âcluelessnessâ. Compared to 21 for robust decision making. 37 for sequence thinking. 82 for Knightian uncertainty. 166 for âDeep Uncertaintyâ. Etc
Suggested follow up.
One interesting solution might that whenever referring to practical decision making challenges, the term âclulessnessâ (which appears to be a niche philosophical term) could be replaced with terms more common in the decision making literature, such as âdeep uncertaintyâ or âknightian uncertaintyâ; for example on the EA wiki or in future posts.
NOTE: This review has been edited to reflect comments below. Will post the initial review below as well for prosperity. See here.
The term âcluelessnessâ has been used in the philosophical literature for decades, to refer to the specific and well-defined problem faced by consequentialism and other moral theories which take future consequences into account. Greavesâs talk is a contribution to that literature. She wasnât even the first to use the term in EA contexts; I believe Amanda Askell and probably other EAs were discussing cluelessness years before this talk.
Yes you are correct. I am not an expert here but my best guess is the story is something like
âMoral cluelessnessâ was a philosophical term that has been around for a while.
Hilary borrow the philosophy term and extended it to discuss âcomplex clulessnessâ (which a quick Google makes me think is a term she invented).
âcomplex cluelessnessâ is essentially identical to âdeep uncertaintyâ and such concepts (at least as far as I can tell from reading her work, I think it was this paper I read) .
This and other articles then shorthanded âcomplex cluelessnessâ to just âcluelessnessâ.
I am not sure exactly, happy to be corrected. So maybe not an invented term but maybe a borrowed, slightly changed and then rephrased term. Or something like that. It all gets a bit confusing.
And sorry for picking on this talk if Hilary was just borrowing ideas from others, just saw it on the Decade Review list.
â â
Either way I donât think this changes the point of my review. It is of course totally fine to invent /â reinvent /â borrow terminology, (in fact in academic philosophy it is almost a requirement as far as I can tell). And it is of course fine for philosophers to talk like philosophers. I just think sometimes adding new jargon to the EA space can cause more confusion than clarity, and this has been one of those times. I think in this case it would have been much better if EA had got into the habit of using the more common widely used terminology that is more applicable to this topic (this specific topic is not, as far as I can tell, a problem where philosophy has done the bulk of the work to date).
And insofar as the decade review is about reviewing what has been useful 1+ years later I would say this is a nice post that has in actuality turned out unfortunately to be dis-useful /â net harmful. Not trying to place blame. Maybe there is just a lesson for all of us on being cautious on introducing terminology.
A few thoughts:
Iâm open to the possibility that there are terms better than âcluelessnessâ to refer to the problem Hilary discusses in her talk. Perhaps we could continue this discussion elsewhere, such as on the âtalkâ page of the cluelessness Wiki entry (note that the entry is currently just a stub)?
As noted, the term has been used in philosophy for quite some time. So if equivalent or related expressions exist in other disciplines, the question is, âWhich of these terms should we settle for?â Whereas you make it seem like using âcluelessnessâ requires a special justification, relative to the other choices.
Since Hilary didnât introduce the term, either in philosophy or in EA, it seems inappropriate to evaluate her talk negatively, even granting that it would have been desirable if a term other than âcluelessnessâ had become established.
Separately, I think Hilaryâs talk is a valuable contribution to the problem, so I donât think it warrants a negative evaluation. (But maybe you disagree and your views about the substance of the talk also influenced your assessment? In your follow-up comment, you say that the problem âhas reasonable solutionsâ, though I am personally not aware of any such solution.)
The EA Forum wiki has talk pages!! Wow you learn something new every day :-)
Yes I think that is ultimately the thing we disagree on. And perhaps it is one of those subjective things that we will always disagree on (e.g. maybe different life experiences means you read some content as new and exciting and I read the same thing as old and repetitive).
If I had to condense why I didnât think it is a valuable contribution is it looks to me (given my background) that it is reinventing the wheel.
The rough topic of how to make decisions under uncertainty about the impact of those decisions (uncertainty about what the options are, what the probabilities are, how to decide, what is even valuable ect) in the face of unknown unknowns, etc â is a topic that military planners, risk managers, academics and others have been researching for decades. And they have a host of solutions: anti-fragility, robust-decision making, assumption based planning, sequence thinking, adaptive planning. And they have views on when to make such decisions, when to do more research, how to respond, etc.
I think any thorough analysis of the options for addressing uncertainty/âcluelessness really should draw on some of that literature (before dismissing options like âmake bolder estimatesâ /â âmake the analysis more sophisticatedâ) . Otherwise it would be like trying to reinvent the wheel, suggesting it should be square and then concluding it cannot be done and wheels donât work.
Hope that explains where I am coming from.
(PS. To reiterate, in Hilaryâs defense, EAs reinvent wheels all the time. No1 top flaw and all that. I just think this specific case has lead to lots of confusion. Eg people thinking there is no good research into uncertainty management)
Thanks for the reply. Although this doesnât resolve our disagreement, it helps to clarify it.
Thank you Pablo. Have edited my review. Hopefully it is fairer and more clear now. Thank you for the helpful feedback!!
Just to build on what Pablo has been saying, the term âcluelessnessâ goes back to at least 2000 where James Lenman used it specifically as an argument against consequentialism. Hilary in her 2016 paper was responding specifically to Lenmanâs critique, so it seems fair that she used the term cluelessness there, and in this particular talk. She was indeed the first person to draw a distinction between âsimpleâ and âcomplexâ cluelessness.
By the way, in that paper Hilary has a footnote saying:
So the term may go all the way back to Smart in 1973 but I canât be certain as I canât access the specific text cited.
Regarding other terms such as Knightian Uncertainty. Iâm far from sure about all this, but Knightian uncertainty seems something that we can work around and account for within a particular ethical framework (say consequentialism) through various toolsâas you imply. However, cluelessness is an argument against ethical frameworks themselves, including consequentialism. In this case these seem very different concepts that rightly are referred to differently. (EDIT: although admittedly cluelessness has become something we are trying to work around within a consequentialist framework so youâre not entirely wrong...).
Hi Jack, lovely to get your input.
Sure, âcluelessnessâ is a long standing philosophical term that is âan argument against ethical frameworks themselves, including consequentialismâ. Very happy to accept that.
But that doesnât seem to be the case here in this talk. Hilary says âhow confident should we be really that the cost-effectiveness analysis weâve got is any decent guide at all to how we should be spending our money? Thatâs the worry that I call âcluelessnessââ. This seems to be a practical decision making problem.
Which is why it looks like to me that a term has been borrowed from philosophy, and used in another context. (And even if it was never the intent to do so it seems to me that people in EA took the term to be used as pointing to the practical decision making challenges of making decisions under uncertainty.)
Borrowing terms happens all the time but unfortunately in this case it appears to have caused some confusion along the way. It would have been simpler to use the keep the philosophy term in the philosophy box to talk about topics such as the limits of knowledge and so on, and to use one of the terms from decision making (like âdeep uncertaintyâ) to talk about practical issues like making decisions about where to donate given the things we donât know, and kept everything nice and simple.
But also it is not really a big deal. Kind of confusing /â pet peeve level, but no-one uses the right words all the time, I certainly donât. (If there is a thing this post does badly it is the reinventing the wheel point, see my response to Pablo above, and the word choice is a part of that broader confusion about how to approach uncertainty).
Thank you Pablo. Have edited my review. Hopefully it is fairer and more clear now. Thank you for the helpful feedback!!
To be a bit more concrete, I spend my time talking to politicians, policy makers, risk mangers, climate scientists, military strategists, activists. I think most of these people would understand âdeep uncertaintyâ and âwicked problemâ but less so âcluelessnessâ. I think they would mean the same thing by this term as this post means by âcluelessnessâ. I think the fact that âcluelessnessâ became the popular term in EA has made things a bit more challenging for me.
I recognise that expecting people to police their language against the possibility some term they introduce their audience to is suboptimal is a high bar. Philosophers use philosophy language and that is obviously fine. I just wish âcluelessnessâ hadnât been the term that seemed to stick in EA and that one of these other words had been used (and also I think that the talk could have benefited from recognising that this is an issue that gets attention and has reasonable solutions outside of philosophy).
My understanding is that âcomplex cluelessnessâ is not essentially identical toâdeep uncertaintyâ, although âdeep uncertaintyâ could mean a few things and Iâm not sure exactly what you have in mind.
My understanding is also that the term is not essentially identical to âuncertaintyâ âKnightian uncertaintyâ âwicked problemsâ âextreme model uncertaintyâ or âfragile credencesâ
I do however think that EAs often use the term âcluelessnessâ incorrectly in a way that makes it more similar to these other terms. I think this is because cluelessness is a confusing topic to wrap ones head around correctly.
Hmmm ⌠I am not sure what it means that EAs use the term âcluelessnessâ incorrectly. I honestly never hear the term used outside of EA. So have been I assuming the way EAs use it is the only way (and hence correct), so maybe I have been using it incorrectly.
Would love some more clarity if you have time to provide it!
As far as I can tell
âcomplex clulessnessâ as defined by Hilary here just seems to be one specific form of (or maybe specific way of rephrasing) deep uncertainty , so a subcategory of âKnightian uncertaintyâ as defined by Wikipedia or âDeep uncertaintyâ as defined here.
âclulessnessâ as it is most commonly used by EAs seems to be the same as âKnightian uncertaintyâ as defined by Wikipedia or âdeep uncertaintyâ as defined here.
Is that correct?
My initial review was as follows:
(My thanks to the post authors, velutvulpes and juliakarbing, for transcribing and adding a talk to the EA Forum, comments below refer to the contents of the talk).
I gave this a decade review downvote and wanted to set out why.
I think this is on the whole a decent talk that sets out an personal individualâs journey through EA and working out how they can do the most good.
It does however do a little bit of reinventing of the wheel. Now EAs across the board can, I think fairly, be criticised for reinventing the wheel. In fact this survey of 40 EA leaders found that âThe biggest concern and a trend that came up again and again was that EAs tend to reinvent the wheel a lotâ.
In this talk (and other work) the author defines and introduces the idea of âcluelessnessâ. This serves a purpose but it is done without any mention of the myriad of existing terminologies that essentially mean the same thing, such as âuncertaintyâ âdeep uncertaintyâ âKnightian uncertaintyâ âwicked problemsâ âextreme model uncertaintyâ âfragile credencesâ etc. The author then suggests 5 responses to cluelessness without mentioning the decades of research that have gone into the above topics and the existing ways humans deal with these issues.
Ultimately this should not a big deal. We all invent terminology from time to time, or borrow from domains we are familiar with to explain what is on our mind. It is not a big sin and can normally be shrugged off.
Unfortunately this author has had the bad luck that her new terminology stuck. And it stuck pretty hard. There is a âcluelessnessâ tag on the EA wiki and over 450 pages on the EA Forum that mention âcluelessnessâ. Reflecting back, and talking to other EAs a year later, I think this [edit: invented] term may have been harmful for EA discourse. I expect it has lead to people being unaware of the troves of academic (and other) work done to date on managing high levels of uncertainty and managing risks to confusion and ongoing wheel reinventing.
Suggested follow up (if any) might be things like replacing the âclulessnessâ wiki page with another term and for people to stop using the term as much as possible.