I think it’s a great idea. My intuition is that you ought to exaggerate what makes your work different from the existing EA canon. For example, you might want to be much more accessible than the works put out by moral philosophers. To this end, I suggest partnering with someone with a track record publishing pop-science, self-help or similar.
It doesn’t mean you have to water down EA ideas. But it would probably mean distilling the essence of EA thought into a few clear principles, which can then use to illustrate why EA leads to various conclusions.
For example (off the top of my head) your principles might be:
The outcomes are what matters (consequentialism)
Do your best with the information available (Bayesian thinking)
Then, in your chapter on personal consumption choices, you can show why (to borrow Geoffrey Miller’s example) transitioning from chicken to grass-fed beef, with an offset donation to Vegan Outreach (a bewildering choice to most people) stems from the principles.
In short, you should aim to be accessible, but not one of those books that you have to flick back through to find the answers to each of life’s questions. Readers should be left with a clear and lasting grounding in the basics.
While I’m writing about setting yourself apart from the EA canon, I feel I should point out the obvious—women, especially mothers, are not well-represented among EA authors. If you can find some way to productively collaborate with Julia, you should.
On purely pragmatic grounds, having a female name on the cover will affect the readership
Poor representation is plausibly linked to increased attrition (I see the higher rates of attrition among women studying math as an example of this)
Parenthood, which is essentially a lifelong commitment to favour your child over others, urgently needs discussing in the context of EA, especially by those who are both EA and parents.
I think it’s a great idea. My intuition is that you ought to exaggerate what makes your work different from the existing EA canon. For example, you might want to be much more accessible than the works put out by moral philosophers. To this end, I suggest partnering with someone with a track record publishing pop-science, self-help or similar.
It doesn’t mean you have to water down EA ideas. But it would probably mean distilling the essence of EA thought into a few clear principles, which can then use to illustrate why EA leads to various conclusions.
For example (off the top of my head) your principles might be:
The outcomes are what matters (consequentialism)
Do your best with the information available (Bayesian thinking)
Then, in your chapter on personal consumption choices, you can show why (to borrow Geoffrey Miller’s example) transitioning from chicken to grass-fed beef, with an offset donation to Vegan Outreach (a bewildering choice to most people) stems from the principles.
In short, you should aim to be accessible, but not one of those books that you have to flick back through to find the answers to each of life’s questions. Readers should be left with a clear and lasting grounding in the basics.
While I’m writing about setting yourself apart from the EA canon, I feel I should point out the obvious—women, especially mothers, are not well-represented among EA authors. If you can find some way to productively collaborate with Julia, you should.
On purely pragmatic grounds, having a female name on the cover will affect the readership
Poor representation is plausibly linked to increased attrition (I see the higher rates of attrition among women studying math as an example of this)
Parenthood, which is essentially a lifelong commitment to favour your child over others, urgently needs discussing in the context of EA, especially by those who are both EA and parents.