1. I don’t think this is the right standard (or a fair standard) for a few reasons.
1a. I don’t recall Cummings claiming that this was a _comprehensive_ description of the “most important economic and political priorities.” But it’s been a while since I read the essay, perhaps you can correct me.
1b. Even if this essay was presented as a description of the top economic and political priorities, it’s always trivially easy to think of _some_ potentially highly important issue that wasn’t discussed. I think it’s a bad idea to dismiss an article on that basis. One could easily think of multiple potentially huge global issues that aren’t discussed at any length in _Doing Good Better_ for example. As such this seems like an unrealistic standard.
1c. This strikes me as an asymmetric demand for rigor. If someone wrote an article or blog post discussing their personal thoughts on how climate change, poverty, various forms of discrimination are all inter-linked as top priorities, I think it would be churlish and inappropriate to respond that this didn’t discuss (at sufficient length for your liking) technological risks or democratic reform or whatever.
2. Maybe he does, perhaps especially in one of the various digressions he goes into where he just starts talking about Quantum Computing or Set Theory or whatever. But I didn’t see anything particular in the review to suggest that he does. Per my original comment, it seems to me that you mostly just observe that he hasn’t discussed certain topics.
3. I think you presenting an argument for this would be worthwhile. Notably, he _does_ discuss democratic and democratic institutions at numerous points throughout the essay, so I think this would require engaging in more detail with the substance of his arguments.
1a,1b. My interpretation is that the essay aims to provide a sketch of what should be covered in an education, e.g. p7: ‘In order to provide some structure to such an enterprise, a schema of seven big areas and some material is sketched’. I think it is a poor sketch.
1c. I think that if DGB claimed to be a sketch of the most important areas there are, and it missed out a huge area, e.g. global poverty, then it could be rightly challenged as a poor guide.
2. In the review I mention that his digressions into neurons and processing power draws false conclusions. He is also particularly scornful of the social sciences, and arts and humanities.
3. It is true that he briefly discusses voting in a section on decision-making and in an endnote, but in both places it is incidental to his point rather than a main topic. A discussion of voting and democracy is absent from the section I was expecting it, ′ 7. Political economy, philosophy, and avoiding catastrophes.’, and I cannot see it covered elsewhere in the piece.
My interpretation is that the essay aims to provide a sketch of what should be covered in an education, e.g. p7: ‘In order to provide some structure to such an enterprise, a schema of seven big areas and some material is sketched’. I think it is a poor sketch.
I note that you’ve switched from suggesting that the essay is supposed to give a comprehensive account of “most important economic and political priorities” to suggesting this is supposed to give “a sketch of what should be covered in an education”, but I think this is a better characterization of the point of the essay so that’s fine.
However, I think it’s only plausible to think that the essay is aiming to sketch some necessary prerequisites of an education, not as claiming that the contents are sufficient for or fully exhaustive of a good education. Complaining that he hasn’t discussed certain topics (in enough depth) seems an unreasonable complaint: of course, no single essay is going to describe every topic that should be in an education.
As an aside, I think it’s somewhat perverse given that the majority of educations almost completely fail to address topics like probability, forecasting, overcoming bias, decision-making about risk (the topics which Cummings highlights and EAs are rightly concerned about) and yet the response is to single out this essay to complain that it doesn’t egage with topics like climate change (which it actually does).
In the review I mention that his digressions into neurons and processing power draws false conclusions.
Yes, in my original comments I highlighted your claim that “he draws false equivalences between the count of neurons in a brain and the processing power of computers, when this field still has many deep uncertainties” because that was the only point where I could find you actually disagreeing with something specific in the essay. Having reviewed every mention of “neuron” in the text, I’m not sure that this does actually lead to any “false conclusion.” But that aside, as I noted in my original comment, this putative “false equivalence” in a field with “deep uncertainties” concerning a side point that he goes into doesn’t seem like much of an objection to the essay as a whole.
It is true that he briefly discusses voting in a section on decision-making and in an endnote, but a discussion of voting and democracy is absent from the section I was expecting it, ′ 7. Political economy, philosophy, and avoiding catastrophes.’, and I cannot see it covered elsewhere in the piece.
I think this falls under my general response that you can’t reasonably criticize the (already hugely long, multi-topic spanning) essay for not discussing certain specific topics (that it discusses) more. Much of the piece is arguably about improving democratic institutions (through discussions of better thinking about risk, probability, forecasting and complex systems), so just saying that it could have discussed voting more in a specific section seems an unreasonable demand.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I’ve thought about the points you raise and I think they are all good challenges. I agree that Cummings raises interesting and relevant points in a range of areas.
I think you and I have different views on several points. The most important one seems to be that I think the piece at times aspires to represent the whole, even as a sketch (‘An Odyssean education’). And my view is that two of the most important areas (if I were writing such an essay) would be voting and political systems, and climate change, neither of which I feel get sufficient attention in the piece. It seems that on each of these topics you take a different viewpoint, which I respect. Again, thanks for your feedback. Unless there’s much else you think we can do to resolve this difference, I’d probably leave it there.
Thanks for your reply!
1. I don’t think this is the right standard (or a fair standard) for a few reasons.
1a. I don’t recall Cummings claiming that this was a _comprehensive_ description of the “most important economic and political priorities.” But it’s been a while since I read the essay, perhaps you can correct me.
1b. Even if this essay was presented as a description of the top economic and political priorities, it’s always trivially easy to think of _some_ potentially highly important issue that wasn’t discussed. I think it’s a bad idea to dismiss an article on that basis. One could easily think of multiple potentially huge global issues that aren’t discussed at any length in _Doing Good Better_ for example. As such this seems like an unrealistic standard.
1c. This strikes me as an asymmetric demand for rigor. If someone wrote an article or blog post discussing their personal thoughts on how climate change, poverty, various forms of discrimination are all inter-linked as top priorities, I think it would be churlish and inappropriate to respond that this didn’t discuss (at sufficient length for your liking) technological risks or democratic reform or whatever.
2. Maybe he does, perhaps especially in one of the various digressions he goes into where he just starts talking about Quantum Computing or Set Theory or whatever. But I didn’t see anything particular in the review to suggest that he does. Per my original comment, it seems to me that you mostly just observe that he hasn’t discussed certain topics.
3. I think you presenting an argument for this would be worthwhile. Notably, he _does_ discuss democratic and democratic institutions at numerous points throughout the essay, so I think this would require engaging in more detail with the substance of his arguments.
1a,1b. My interpretation is that the essay aims to provide a sketch of what should be covered in an education, e.g. p7: ‘In order to provide some structure to such an enterprise, a schema of seven big areas and some material is sketched’. I think it is a poor sketch.
1c. I think that if DGB claimed to be a sketch of the most important areas there are, and it missed out a huge area, e.g. global poverty, then it could be rightly challenged as a poor guide.
2. In the review I mention that his digressions into neurons and processing power draws false conclusions. He is also particularly scornful of the social sciences, and arts and humanities.
3. It is true that he briefly discusses voting in a section on decision-making and in an endnote, but in both places it is incidental to his point rather than a main topic. A discussion of voting and democracy is absent from the section I was expecting it, ′ 7. Political economy, philosophy, and avoiding catastrophes.’, and I cannot see it covered elsewhere in the piece.
I note that you’ve switched from suggesting that the essay is supposed to give a comprehensive account of “most important economic and political priorities” to suggesting this is supposed to give “a sketch of what should be covered in an education”, but I think this is a better characterization of the point of the essay so that’s fine.
However, I think it’s only plausible to think that the essay is aiming to sketch some necessary prerequisites of an education, not as claiming that the contents are sufficient for or fully exhaustive of a good education. Complaining that he hasn’t discussed certain topics (in enough depth) seems an unreasonable complaint: of course, no single essay is going to describe every topic that should be in an education.
As an aside, I think it’s somewhat perverse given that the majority of educations almost completely fail to address topics like probability, forecasting, overcoming bias, decision-making about risk (the topics which Cummings highlights and EAs are rightly concerned about) and yet the response is to single out this essay to complain that it doesn’t egage with topics like climate change (which it actually does).
Yes, in my original comments I highlighted your claim that “he draws false equivalences between the count of neurons in a brain and the processing power of computers, when this field still has many deep uncertainties” because that was the only point where I could find you actually disagreeing with something specific in the essay. Having reviewed every mention of “neuron” in the text, I’m not sure that this does actually lead to any “false conclusion.” But that aside, as I noted in my original comment, this putative “false equivalence” in a field with “deep uncertainties” concerning a side point that he goes into doesn’t seem like much of an objection to the essay as a whole.
I think this falls under my general response that you can’t reasonably criticize the (already hugely long, multi-topic spanning) essay for not discussing certain specific topics (that it discusses) more. Much of the piece is arguably about improving democratic institutions (through discussions of better thinking about risk, probability, forecasting and complex systems), so just saying that it could have discussed voting more in a specific section seems an unreasonable demand.
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I’ve thought about the points you raise and I think they are all good challenges. I agree that Cummings raises interesting and relevant points in a range of areas.
I think you and I have different views on several points. The most important one seems to be that I think the piece at times aspires to represent the whole, even as a sketch (‘An Odyssean education’). And my view is that two of the most important areas (if I were writing such an essay) would be voting and political systems, and climate change, neither of which I feel get sufficient attention in the piece. It seems that on each of these topics you take a different viewpoint, which I respect. Again, thanks for your feedback. Unless there’s much else you think we can do to resolve this difference, I’d probably leave it there.