A majority of the pieces are not written in academic form, even though most include citations from academic sources. The most obviously academic pieces are 9 by Adams, 15 by Sanbonmatsu, and 16 by Crary.
I would categorize the book as largely “normal”. It pulls from a group of writers whose backgrounds and writing styles vary.
The highest-level takeaways (not my own views, except when “I/I’d” is included”):
EA is missing relevant data due to its over-reliance on quantifiable data
Effective does not equal impactful
Lack of localized knowledge and interventions reduces sustainability, adoption (trust), and overall impact
The lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the community produces worse outcomes and less impact. The same is said regarding considerations of [racial] justice.
EA neglects engagement with non-EA movements and actors; in addition to worse EA outcomes, it harms otherwise positive work. In short, EA undervalues solidarity.
I’d liken this to something along the lines of “EA doesn’t play nicely with the other kids in the sandbox”.
EA is too rigid and does not fair well in complex situations
EA lacks compassion/is cold, and though it is commonly argued this improves outcomes, it is more harmful than not
EA relies upon and reifies systems that may be causing disproportionate harm; it fails to consider that radical changes outside of its scope may be the most impactful
EA is an egotistical philosophy and community; it speaks and acts with certainty that it shouldn’t
A majority of the pieces are not written in academic form, even though most include citations from academic sources. The most obviously academic pieces are 9 by Adams, 15 by Sanbonmatsu, and 16 by Crary.
I would categorize the book as largely “normal”. It pulls from a group of writers whose backgrounds and writing styles vary.
The highest-level takeaways (not my own views, except when “I/I’d” is included”):
EA is missing relevant data due to its over-reliance on quantifiable data
Effective does not equal impactful
Lack of localized knowledge and interventions reduces sustainability, adoption (trust), and overall impact
The lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the community produces worse outcomes and less impact. The same is said regarding considerations of [racial] justice.
EA neglects engagement with non-EA movements and actors; in addition to worse EA outcomes, it harms otherwise positive work. In short, EA undervalues solidarity.
I’d liken this to something along the lines of “EA doesn’t play nicely with the other kids in the sandbox”.
EA is too rigid and does not fair well in complex situations
EA lacks compassion/is cold, and though it is commonly argued this improves outcomes, it is more harmful than not
EA relies upon and reifies systems that may be causing disproportionate harm; it fails to consider that radical changes outside of its scope may be the most impactful
EA is an egotistical philosophy and community; it speaks and acts with certainty that it shouldn’t