To be honest for a moment, I’d appreciate an explanation of why Peter’s post will do much better than mine. Peter is a better writer with a track record of good observations. But I sense it would do better anyway.
Should we rank A much higher than B?
A:
Rapidly written
Criticisms largely unjustified
Many short ideas
Few tractable solutions
B:
One central theory
Moderately well researched and critiqued
Clear tractable solution
I guess it may seem sour or something, but it just genuinely seems that we want to incentivise more posts like mine compared to what we currently see, even though Peter’s is more fun to read.
Go look at this post https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/X47rn28Xy5TRfGgSj/21-criticisms-of-ea-i-m-thinking-about
To be honest for a moment, I’d appreciate an explanation of why Peter’s post will do much better than mine. Peter is a better writer with a track record of good observations. But I sense it would do better anyway.
Should we rank A much higher than B?
A:
Rapidly written
Criticisms largely unjustified
Many short ideas
Few tractable solutions
B:
One central theory
Moderately well researched and critiqued
Clear tractable solution
I guess it may seem sour or something, but it just genuinely seems that we want to incentivise more posts like mine compared to what we currently see, even though Peter’s is more fun to read.
Wait, which of you has one central theory and on clear tractable solution?