Let’s not fail at other minds. SSIR is a prominent venue, and if its editors saw this as fit to print, we should assume plenty of other people agreed with it.
If you look at the article’s comments, there were far more people who disagreed with the authors than agreed. Also, EA is so small at this stage that even negative publicity means more people hear about us and are thus potentially encouraged to consider effective giving as an option.
Agreed on the potentially positive value of negative publicity, at this stage in the movement’s growth at least. We should be careful about how we expend our weirdness points, however.
For an example of a media piece about the problems of EA elitism, see here: http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism
To be fair, that post is probably positive publicity for EA. Like, it’s a REALLY bad critique.
Let’s not fail at other minds. SSIR is a prominent venue, and if its editors saw this as fit to print, we should assume plenty of other people agreed with it.
If you look at the article’s comments, there were far more people who disagreed with the authors than agreed. Also, EA is so small at this stage that even negative publicity means more people hear about us and are thus potentially encouraged to consider effective giving as an option.
Agreed on the potentially positive value of negative publicity, at this stage in the movement’s growth at least. We should be careful about how we expend our weirdness points, however.