I don’t know any other EAs in my area so I haven’t witnessed this phenomenon. On the one hand, I like the self-deprecating style because it is the exact opposite style to my arch-nemeses, the anti-science/dark-epistemology people (you know them by many names: climate dismissives, anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear-power zealots, math deniers...).
On the other hand, there is a reason my nemeses act this way: it works well for them. Certain anti-vaxxers probably earn over $1 million annually on Substack from $5/mo. subscriptions. Clearly, a great many people are attracted to a confident “I’m always right” style of speaking and acting. Are there people who would like EA more if it were more like that? No doubt. Are there enough people who reject “weirdness” that EA would grow more if it worked harder to look cool? Plausible. Can we look cool without risking the soul of EA? Maybe.
But golly, I wouldn’t want to take a position without collecting empirical data on all this!
I don’t know any other EAs in my area so I haven’t witnessed this phenomenon. On the one hand, I like the self-deprecating style because it is the exact opposite style to my arch-nemeses, the anti-science/dark-epistemology people (you know them by many names: climate dismissives, anti-vaxxers, anti-nuclear-power zealots, math deniers...).
On the other hand, there is a reason my nemeses act this way: it works well for them. Certain anti-vaxxers probably earn over $1 million annually on Substack from $5/mo. subscriptions. Clearly, a great many people are attracted to a confident “I’m always right” style of speaking and acting. Are there people who would like EA more if it were more like that? No doubt. Are there enough people who reject “weirdness” that EA would grow more if it worked harder to look cool? Plausible. Can we look cool without risking the soul of EA? Maybe.
But golly, I wouldn’t want to take a position without collecting empirical data on all this!