Hi Gleb,
I was the first person who voted on this post at all and it was a downvote. I didn’t explain it immediately because people’s preferences for whether they like explanations or not seem to differ.
My reasons were the same that other people have mentioned before—you write a lot in a small forum, that can come across as overwhelming and I think it would be preferable if you (had) made one long post with all your ideas.
Your posts also have a weak feeling of being self-promotional to me.
I wasn’t sure whether you preferred public or private feedback, if you prefer private feedback, I’m happy to delete this comment.
(I also just decided not to approve your posts in the ‘Effektiver Altruismus’ FB group for roughly the same reasons.)
Denise, thanks a lot for the explanation! Really appreciate it.
I generally have a perspective that we’re all in this movement together, and have some disagreements about getting to shared goals. But if we don’t give each other feedback, how will we learn and improve? Private feedback is fine, or public feedback if you think others should see it, but some kind of feedback is super-helpful :-)
Regarding the many posts, I’d like to understand more how it might come across as overwhelming. After all, people may choose to read them or not.
On the point of writing one long post versus more smaller ones, what I tend to find is that as I get feedback on smaller posts, I update, think more, have more interactions, and then my ideas develop to write another post. I see this as the essence of community engagement—co-creating ideas collaboratively, not me coming up with ideas in isolation and then writing about them.
I accept your choice for the FB group. I’m curious what are the attitudes of members of the group about this. If you want to figure it out, it should be easy enough to do via a FB poll. Not saying you need to do it, and I’m fine with your choice just based on your say-so, but this would be the way of gathering evidence that I would take if I wanted evidence.
I hear you about the self-promotional stuff. I generally have an approach of saying the things that I will do, and then doing them, and then getting feedback from the community about them. My goal is to try to improve based on feedback. I can see how it might come off as self-promotional to some, though—they can’t read my mind about my motivations. Having gotten some feedback about the perception of self-promotional just a bit earlier, I will aim to mention Intentional Insights less in my posts—for example, in the post above, I did not mention it once.
I didn’t explain it immediately because people’s preferences for whether they like explanations or not seem to differ.
This makes sense. :) Ideally people should get to specify whether they prefer to have public versus private criticism, as having public criticism forced on them without their requesting it would likely put a lot of people off entering into EA discussions altogether.
Hi Gleb, I was the first person who voted on this post at all and it was a downvote. I didn’t explain it immediately because people’s preferences for whether they like explanations or not seem to differ.
My reasons were the same that other people have mentioned before—you write a lot in a small forum, that can come across as overwhelming and I think it would be preferable if you (had) made one long post with all your ideas.
Your posts also have a weak feeling of being self-promotional to me.
I wasn’t sure whether you preferred public or private feedback, if you prefer private feedback, I’m happy to delete this comment.
(I also just decided not to approve your posts in the ‘Effektiver Altruismus’ FB group for roughly the same reasons.)
Denise, thanks a lot for the explanation! Really appreciate it.
I generally have a perspective that we’re all in this movement together, and have some disagreements about getting to shared goals. But if we don’t give each other feedback, how will we learn and improve? Private feedback is fine, or public feedback if you think others should see it, but some kind of feedback is super-helpful :-)
Regarding the many posts, I’d like to understand more how it might come across as overwhelming. After all, people may choose to read them or not.
On the point of writing one long post versus more smaller ones, what I tend to find is that as I get feedback on smaller posts, I update, think more, have more interactions, and then my ideas develop to write another post. I see this as the essence of community engagement—co-creating ideas collaboratively, not me coming up with ideas in isolation and then writing about them.
I accept your choice for the FB group. I’m curious what are the attitudes of members of the group about this. If you want to figure it out, it should be easy enough to do via a FB poll. Not saying you need to do it, and I’m fine with your choice just based on your say-so, but this would be the way of gathering evidence that I would take if I wanted evidence.
I hear you about the self-promotional stuff. I generally have an approach of saying the things that I will do, and then doing them, and then getting feedback from the community about them. My goal is to try to improve based on feedback. I can see how it might come off as self-promotional to some, though—they can’t read my mind about my motivations. Having gotten some feedback about the perception of self-promotional just a bit earlier, I will aim to mention Intentional Insights less in my posts—for example, in the post above, I did not mention it once.
This makes sense. :) Ideally people should get to specify whether they prefer to have public versus private criticism, as having public criticism forced on them without their requesting it would likely put a lot of people off entering into EA discussions altogether.