I think this topic is more relevant than the original one.
Relevant with respect to what? For me, the most sensible standard to use here seems to be “whether it is relevant to the original topic of the post (the thesis being brought up, or its antithesis)”. Yes, the topic of personal behavior is relevant to EA’s stability and therefore how much good we can do, or even the long-term future. But considering that there are other ways of letting people know what is being communicated here, such as starting a new post, I don’t think we should use this criterion of relevance.
Ideas, however important to the long-term future, can surface more than once.
That’s true, logically speaking. But that’s also logically true for EA/EA-like communities. In other words, it’s always “possible” that if this EA breaks, there “could be” another similar one that will be formed again. But I am guessing not many people would like to take the bet based on the “come again argument”. Then what is our reason for being willing to take a similar bet with this potentially important—I believe crucial—topic (or just any topic)?
And again, the fact that there are other ways to bring up the topic of personal behavior makes it even less reasonable to use this argument as a justification here. In other words, there seem to be way better alternatives to “reduce X-risk to EA” than commenting patterns like it’s happening here, that might risk “forcing a topic away from the surface”.
And we cannot say that if something “can surface more than once”, then we should expect it to also “surface before it is too late”, or “surface with the same influence”. Timing matters, and so do the “comment sections” of all historical discussions on a topic.
There are also some even more “down-to-earth” issues, such as the future writers on this topic experiencing difficulties of many sorts. For example, seeing this post went this way, should the writer of a next similar post (TBH, I have long thought of writing a similar post to this) just pretend that this post doesn’t exist? This seems to be bad intellectual practice. But if they do cite this post, readers will see the comment section here, and one might worry that readers will be affected. More specifically, what if Jacy got this post exactly spot on? Should people who hold exactly the same view just pretend this post doesn’t exist and post almost exactly the same thing?
I haven’t voted on the post either way despite agreeing that the writer should probably not be here.
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that “not voting either way” isn’t absolute proof that you haven’t been affected—you could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I suspect the average person here is even less prone than me to downvote for reasons unrelated to content.
I have to say I am much more pessimistic than you on this. I think it’s psychologically quite natural that with such comments in the comment section, one might find it hard to concentrate through such a long piece, especially if one takes a stance against the writers’ behavior.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think you raised good points and I’ll only comment on some of them.
Mainly, I think raising the issue somewhere else wouldn’t be nearly as effective, both in terms of directly engaging Jacy and of making his readers aware.
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that “not voting either way” isn’t absolute proof that you haven’t been affected—you could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I noticed the post much before John made his comment. I didn’t read it thoroughly or vote then,
so I haven’t changed my decision—but yes, I guess I’d be very reluctant to upvote now. So my analysis of myself wasn’t entirely right.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Hmm. Should I have not replied then? … I considered it, but eventually decided some parts of the reply were important enough.
Relevant with respect to what? For me, the most sensible standard to use here seems to be “whether it is relevant to the original topic of the post (the thesis being brought up, or its antithesis)”. Yes, the topic of personal behavior is relevant to EA’s stability and therefore how much good we can do, or even the long-term future. But considering that there are other ways of letting people know what is being communicated here, such as starting a new post, I don’t think we should use this criterion of relevance.
That’s true, logically speaking. But that’s also logically true for EA/EA-like communities. In other words, it’s always “possible” that if this EA breaks, there “could be” another similar one that will be formed again. But I am guessing not many people would like to take the bet based on the “come again argument”. Then what is our reason for being willing to take a similar bet with this potentially important—I believe crucial—topic (or just any topic)?
And again, the fact that there are other ways to bring up the topic of personal behavior makes it even less reasonable to use this argument as a justification here. In other words, there seem to be way better alternatives to “reduce X-risk to EA” than commenting patterns like it’s happening here, that might risk “forcing a topic away from the surface”.
And we cannot say that if something “can surface more than once”, then we should expect it to also “surface before it is too late”, or “surface with the same influence”. Timing matters, and so do the “comment sections” of all historical discussions on a topic.
There are also some even more “down-to-earth” issues, such as the future writers on this topic experiencing difficulties of many sorts. For example, seeing this post went this way, should the writer of a next similar post (TBH, I have long thought of writing a similar post to this) just pretend that this post doesn’t exist? This seems to be bad intellectual practice. But if they do cite this post, readers will see the comment section here, and one might worry that readers will be affected. More specifically, what if Jacy got this post exactly spot on? Should people who hold exactly the same view just pretend this post doesn’t exist and post almost exactly the same thing?
I am glad you tried to be fair to the topic. But just like to point out that “not voting either way” isn’t absolute proof that you haven’t been affected—you could have voted positively if not for the extra discussion.
I have to say I am much more pessimistic than you on this. I think it’s psychologically quite natural that with such comments in the comment section, one might find it hard to concentrate through such a long piece, especially if one takes a stance against the writers’ behavior.
I am mindful of the fact that I am contributing to what I am suspecting to be bad practice here, so I am not going to comment on this direction further than this.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think you raised good points and I’ll only comment on some of them.
Mainly, I think raising the issue somewhere else wouldn’t be nearly as effective, both in terms of directly engaging Jacy and of making his readers aware.
I noticed the post much before John made his comment. I didn’t read it thoroughly or vote then, so I haven’t changed my decision—but yes, I guess I’d be very reluctant to upvote now. So my analysis of myself wasn’t entirely right.
Hmm. Should I have not replied then? … I considered it, but eventually decided some parts of the reply were important enough.