Thank you very much for writing this. I think it is a valuable contribution to discussion.
I think there is something to a lot of the points you raised, though I think that this piece isn’t quite there yet. I’ve put some quick thoughts on how to improve the tone (and why I didn’t comment on anything substantive) in a footnote, as well as why I’ve strong upvoted anyway. [1]
I have to admit that I still find Holden’s piece more compelling. Nonetheless, I think you posting this was a very valuable thing to do!
I think the way new ideas develop into their strongest versions is that people post their thinking as-is (exactly like you did) and then others comment with well-argued pushback (rather than downvoting without commenting).
I really hope you and others continue to develop these points. I can really imagine some of the questions you raised could be turned into something much more nuanced and much stronger.
This piece seems like a work-in-progress. It is a beginning to a discussion that I hope continues.
Comparing your piece and Holden’s is not a fair comparison at all and shouldn’t be the bar used to judge whether to upvote or downvote less well established ideas in this community.
Holden has been thinking full-time about related topics for a very long time. He also has many people he can send his draft writing to who have also been thinking about this full-time to point out where he’s being over-confident or where the flaws in his logic are, before he publicly posts his writing.
I would like to see more pieces like this one that push back on ideas that are well-established within this community with more charitable and well-argued comments and less silent downvotes.
I think this piece often is a little unkind to the original piece it critiques, a piece I think is very good. For example, using words like “myopic” seems unnecessary to any of your substantial points.
I suspect the unkind tone was one of the reasons it got downvoted. Softening this a bit would improve the piece. However, more charitable tones take much more work and writing is a lot of work already!
I also don’t think the arguments are yet strong enough for your conclusions. However, writing the strongest possible argument is extremely hard work and impossible to do alone.
It being very hard work to articulate reasoning rigorously is the reason why I’m not writing up exactly what I found less compelling: to do so well is extremely time consuming and takes a lot of energy for me (and for everyone, silently downvoting is a lot easier than writing a comment explaining why).
I am instead using my time to encourage others to put in the time and energy to comment on the substantive claims if they can, instead of downvoting without comment. If onlookers don’t have time to comment, I think it is better to abstain from voting than to downvote so others can see the post and write their pushback.
Abstaining from voting if you don’t have time to comment with reasoning for downvoting seems better than downvoting (even if you think the piece was not as compelling as the piece it criticises). Also, commenting kindly, while pointing out the flaws in logic, seems very valuable because it gives future writers with similar intuitions to the OP something to build-on.
I personally hope for more development of ideas in EA spaces generally.
Putting unpolished ideas out there seems valuable so the sorts of conversations that allow for new ideas to be built on can begin.
Ideas don’t start fully formed. They need a collaborative effort to develop and form into their strongest version.
This post doesn’t have to be perfect to contribute to idea-space and move us all closer to a more nuanced understanding of our world. It can throw an idea out there in an unpolished, unfinished and currently not fully compelling to me form.
Others who have the same intuition can help develop it into something much stronger on draft 2 that I, and others, find more compelling. I want that process to happen. Therefore, I want more pieces like this with intelligent and kind comments pushing back on the biggest logical flaws on the EA forum frontpage.
Then new pieces, draft 2 of these ideas, can be written taking into account the previous comments.
Others comment again. New pieces are written again.
This is the mechanism I see for us incubating more new good ideas that go against our currently established ones.
Starting such discussions is very valuable and neglected on the margin in conversation spaces in this community (like this forum). This is why I felt it was very appropriate to strong upvote this piece. It adds value on the margin to have less well-established ideas entertained and discussed. Therefore I want it to be engaged with more. Therefore I strong upvoted.
Thank you very much for writing this. I think it is a valuable contribution to discussion.
I think there is something to a lot of the points you raised, though I think that this piece isn’t quite there yet. I’ve put some quick thoughts on how to improve the tone (and why I didn’t comment on anything substantive) in a footnote, as well as why I’ve strong upvoted anyway. [1]
I have to admit that I still find Holden’s piece more compelling. Nonetheless, I think you posting this was a very valuable thing to do!
I think the way new ideas develop into their strongest versions is that people post their thinking as-is (exactly like you did) and then others comment with well-argued pushback (rather than downvoting without commenting).
I really hope you and others continue to develop these points. I can really imagine some of the questions you raised could be turned into something much more nuanced and much stronger.
This piece seems like a work-in-progress. It is a beginning to a discussion that I hope continues.
Comparing your piece and Holden’s is not a fair comparison at all and shouldn’t be the bar used to judge whether to upvote or downvote less well established ideas in this community.
Holden has been thinking full-time about related topics for a very long time. He also has many people he can send his draft writing to who have also been thinking about this full-time to point out where he’s being over-confident or where the flaws in his logic are, before he publicly posts his writing.
I would like to see more pieces like this one that push back on ideas that are well-established within this community with more charitable and well-argued comments and less silent downvotes.
I think this piece often is a little unkind to the original piece it critiques, a piece I think is very good. For example, using words like “myopic” seems unnecessary to any of your substantial points.
I suspect the unkind tone was one of the reasons it got downvoted. Softening this a bit would improve the piece. However, more charitable tones take much more work and writing is a lot of work already!
I also don’t think the arguments are yet strong enough for your conclusions. However, writing the strongest possible argument is extremely hard work and impossible to do alone.
It being very hard work to articulate reasoning rigorously is the reason why I’m not writing up exactly what I found less compelling: to do so well is extremely time consuming and takes a lot of energy for me (and for everyone, silently downvoting is a lot easier than writing a comment explaining why).
I am instead using my time to encourage others to put in the time and energy to comment on the substantive claims if they can, instead of downvoting without comment. If onlookers don’t have time to comment, I think it is better to abstain from voting than to downvote so others can see the post and write their pushback.
Abstaining from voting if you don’t have time to comment with reasoning for downvoting seems better than downvoting (even if you think the piece was not as compelling as the piece it criticises). Also, commenting kindly, while pointing out the flaws in logic, seems very valuable because it gives future writers with similar intuitions to the OP something to build-on.
I personally hope for more development of ideas in EA spaces generally.
Putting unpolished ideas out there seems valuable so the sorts of conversations that allow for new ideas to be built on can begin.
Ideas don’t start fully formed. They need a collaborative effort to develop and form into their strongest version.
This post doesn’t have to be perfect to contribute to idea-space and move us all closer to a more nuanced understanding of our world. It can throw an idea out there in an unpolished, unfinished and currently not fully compelling to me form.
Others who have the same intuition can help develop it into something much stronger on draft 2 that I, and others, find more compelling. I want that process to happen. Therefore, I want more pieces like this with intelligent and kind comments pushing back on the biggest logical flaws on the EA forum frontpage.
Then new pieces, draft 2 of these ideas, can be written taking into account the previous comments.
Others comment again. New pieces are written again.
This is the mechanism I see for us incubating more new good ideas that go against our currently established ones.
Starting such discussions is very valuable and neglected on the margin in conversation spaces in this community (like this forum). This is why I felt it was very appropriate to strong upvote this piece. It adds value on the margin to have less well-established ideas entertained and discussed. Therefore I want it to be engaged with more. Therefore I strong upvoted.