I wish all criticism on the EA Forum was like this.
Edit: To elaborate...
Excellent structure
Very concise summary
Concise summary
Epistemic status
The problem
Ideas for solutions
Genuine attempt to consider the costs and appropriate timing of proposed solutions and suggesting more practical medium-term fix
More details
Charitable explanations for why things are as they are and why people want change, rather than assumptions of incompetence or selfishness
“Now that the EA ecosystem is much bigger and more complex, it’s understandable that the community is somewhat confused about and distrustful of CEA” rather than “CEA is untrustworthy” or “No-one trusts each other any more”
“You’ve had a lot of challenges recently and it looks like this set-up is making your lives more difficult too” rather than “CEA is undemocratic and rationalizing its privilege”
But also direct about the problems and not assuming completely charitable explanations either
Genuine appreciation of good work
Discussing the post with the criticized party in advance
Also I’m personally a huge fan of people a) recognizing hindsight bias and b) injecting a bit of personality into posts.
From what I can tell, ‘CEA’ was never meant to be the name of anything substantial ( William MacAskill reports that it was just meant to be the unassuming name of the umbrella organization which 80k and GWWC wanted to form back in the day) - and I think it feels right (in a poetic/nostalgic way) that the community finally moves on from it to something better.
I feel it’s becoming increasingly hard for EA orgs/leaders to feel good about learning, growing and adapting, because before they’ve had a chance to really process a problem, dozens of EAs have publicly and unforgivingly called them out on it. It’s been looking less like a collaborative effort to make progress and more like a fight, where disagreement is ‘unwillingness to be criticized’ and agreement is surrender.
(I think I should basically just accept that this is what happens as communities become larger, but I’m very appreciative of attempts to hold on to the more collaborative spirit.)
I wish all criticism on the EA Forum was like this.
Edit: To elaborate...
Excellent structure
Very concise summary
Concise summary
Epistemic status
The problem
Ideas for solutions
Genuine attempt to consider the costs and appropriate timing of proposed solutions and suggesting more practical medium-term fix
More details
Charitable explanations for why things are as they are and why people want change, rather than assumptions of incompetence or selfishness
“Now that the EA ecosystem is much bigger and more complex, it’s understandable that the community is somewhat confused about and distrustful of CEA” rather than “CEA is untrustworthy” or “No-one trusts each other any more”
“You’ve had a lot of challenges recently and it looks like this set-up is making your lives more difficult too” rather than “CEA is undemocratic and rationalizing its privilege”
But also direct about the problems and not assuming completely charitable explanations either
Genuine appreciation of good work
Discussing the post with the criticized party in advance
Also I’m personally a huge fan of people a) recognizing hindsight bias and b) injecting a bit of personality into posts.
Also,
Loving these ‘It is time’ vibes.
I feel it’s becoming increasingly hard for EA orgs/leaders to feel good about learning, growing and adapting, because before they’ve had a chance to really process a problem, dozens of EAs have publicly and unforgivingly called them out on it. It’s been looking less like a collaborative effort to make progress and more like a fight, where disagreement is ‘unwillingness to be criticized’ and agreement is surrender.
(I think I should basically just accept that this is what happens as communities become larger, but I’m very appreciative of attempts to hold on to the more collaborative spirit.)