Downvoting because I’d like to see more justification for a claim like “Earning to Give is dead”. I’m totally down for bold proclamations, even when they go against the norm, but because you don’t really back it up here it feels sloppy and really detracts from an otherwise interesting and useful post, making me much less likely to want to send it to anyone.
“Earning to Give is dead” would need more justification if this post had been written today as opposed to how much it needed when written over a year ago.
I honestly think it would need it at either time point. This is largely due to my thoughts that, even if you crunched the numbers and convincingly showed that ETG a year ago wasn’t impactful, I still think “ETG is dead” stakes a claim to what “doing the most good” is that would needlessly lead other people astray of EA who wouldn’t be open to changing their career path so drastically in response to changed circumstances.
This is also hindsight bias, but seeing as we’re in the state we are now, a post that declares “ETG is dead” without considering the sustainability of funds over time would seem to be indicative of a general lack of deep consideration into the issue, something I’d hope for for any claims as bold as that.
Don’t want to be the pedantic “tie up every loose end and make sure to justify every little thing before you post” person, but also think this was a large enough part to the post generally that posting without that reasoning just doesn’t seem like a great idea.
That’s a fair position—but I thought the hindsight effect is strong enough that a responsive comment pointing out the context in which the original poster decided not to provide more justification should be made.
Downvoting because I’d like to see more justification for a claim like “Earning to Give is dead”. I’m totally down for bold proclamations, even when they go against the norm, but because you don’t really back it up here it feels sloppy and really detracts from an otherwise interesting and useful post, making me much less likely to want to send it to anyone.
“Earning to Give is dead” would need more justification if this post had been written today as opposed to how much it needed when written over a year ago.
I honestly think it would need it at either time point. This is largely due to my thoughts that, even if you crunched the numbers and convincingly showed that ETG a year ago wasn’t impactful, I still think “ETG is dead” stakes a claim to what “doing the most good” is that would needlessly lead other people astray of EA who wouldn’t be open to changing their career path so drastically in response to changed circumstances.
This is also hindsight bias, but seeing as we’re in the state we are now, a post that declares “ETG is dead” without considering the sustainability of funds over time would seem to be indicative of a general lack of deep consideration into the issue, something I’d hope for for any claims as bold as that.
Don’t want to be the pedantic “tie up every loose end and make sure to justify every little thing before you post” person, but also think this was a large enough part to the post generally that posting without that reasoning just doesn’t seem like a great idea.
That’s a fair position—but I thought the hindsight effect is strong enough that a responsive comment pointing out the context in which the original poster decided not to provide more justification should be made.
Yeah fair enough, understood in that spirit I think that makes a lot of sense