This has a lot of good thinking and good research, and more people should see it.
I almost didn’t read this because of the title; I imagine that twelve people bounced off right there for every person who clicked the link, and if asked for advice I’d recommend changing the title to something more indicative of the post itself such as: “Common Advice For EAs Doesn’t Account For or Analyze the Costs Incurred by Women in Childrearing” (or something pithier to the same general effect).
In particular I’d avoid the word cater, it comes across as value-laden and negative. I initially expected this post to be written by an angry man.
It would also greatly benefit from a concise Key Takeaways at the top, as One-time pad and Guy Raveh have already said. That would also signal to the reader what they’re going to read, which is important because people need to make a snap judgement about whether it’s worth their time to continue.
(I’m always awkward around giving advice; if any of this seems brusque or rude please know that it wasn’t intended that way and I appreciated the article.
This opening
According to a flagship Effective Altruism (EA) organisation, you have 80,000 hours in your career over a lifetime: 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, for 40 years. But does this hold true for women? And if not, what are the implications of this (and related assumptions) for the EA research community and the practical EA community?
is almost perfectly designed to not be read. When I first read the post, my eyes skimmed through this without my brain processing it. I would have read it, if it had been written in normal font and if it were not above what looks like a stock photo.
Upon rereading it, I agree with my brain’s initial learned heuristic of not parsing things written in heading text above what look like stock photos. Don’t waste people’s time beating around the bush or burying the lede, people want to know what they’re reading as soon as possible so that they know if they should read it through and pick over the particulars.
If I’d written it, the opening would read:
A key assumption in 80,000 hours’ advice is that you have 80,000 hours in your career over a lifetime: 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for 40 years. But this doesn’t hold for women, who swallow the larger half of the opportunity cost inherent to raising children.
take whatever from that you find helpful, and disregard whatever sounds to you clunky.
Moving on:
This post looks to explore the following 3 questions:
a) Does EA cater to women, as both a research field and a practical community?
b) If not, what (if any) female-specific considerations ought to be taken into
account by EA?
c)What (if any) practical steps can be taken to ensure that EA is more inclusive
of women, and considerate of women’s lives?
This is another point where as I reader I might have jumped off. You aren’t being paid by how long we stay on this webpage before clicking away! There’s no reason to imitate the style of websites which are paid by how long people have to stay on the webpage afore they can tell what they’re reading. This is safe to cut.
In seeking to answer these questions, this article does the following:
Thank you for spending the time writing such detailed feedback Lumpyproletariat!This is the first ever blog-style post I’d written (and first contribution to the EA Forum), so it’s incredibly helpful that you’ve pointed out specific examples and provided alternatives—it’s helped me to see exactly what I can adjust in future. I can see for example how much more digestible the ‘Table of Contents’ is the way that you’ve drafted it (and how much more cognitive load it requires to read the ’In seeking to answer these questions [...] part as it is currently). Appreciate it a lot!
(If I had more time, I’d look into the claim about delaying children leading to more successful careers to see if it’s something I need to quibble about; it feels like the sort of claim that might have correlation and causation confused. But I do not have the time to get into the weeds on this or any other point and for all I know it could be a perfectly good study. I hope more people see this article so that non-busy people can look into that!)
Upvoted.
This has a lot of good thinking and good research, and more people should see it.
I almost didn’t read this because of the title; I imagine that twelve people bounced off right there for every person who clicked the link, and if asked for advice I’d recommend changing the title to something more indicative of the post itself such as: “Common Advice For EAs Doesn’t Account For or Analyze the Costs Incurred by Women in Childrearing” (or something pithier to the same general effect).
In particular I’d avoid the word cater, it comes across as value-laden and negative. I initially expected this post to be written by an angry man.
It would also greatly benefit from a concise Key Takeaways at the top, as One-time pad and Guy Raveh have already said. That would also signal to the reader what they’re going to read, which is important because people need to make a snap judgement about whether it’s worth their time to continue.
(I’m always awkward around giving advice; if any of this seems brusque or rude please know that it wasn’t intended that way and I appreciated the article.
This opening
is almost perfectly designed to not be read. When I first read the post, my eyes skimmed through this without my brain processing it. I would have read it, if it had been written in normal font and if it were not above what looks like a stock photo.
Upon rereading it, I agree with my brain’s initial learned heuristic of not parsing things written in heading text above what look like stock photos. Don’t waste people’s time beating around the bush or burying the lede, people want to know what they’re reading as soon as possible so that they know if they should read it through and pick over the particulars.
If I’d written it, the opening would read:
take whatever from that you find helpful, and disregard whatever sounds to you clunky.
Moving on:
This is another point where as I reader I might have jumped off. You aren’t being paid by how long we stay on this webpage before clicking away! There’s no reason to imitate the style of websites which are paid by how long people have to stay on the webpage afore they can tell what they’re reading. This is safe to cut.
I’d make this clearer and more concise, for example:
I really like this whole part:
And in fact I like the rest of it as well. Once the article hits its stride, it wears its use to the reader on its sleeve.
Thanks for writing it!
Thank you for spending the time writing such detailed feedback Lumpyproletariat! This is the first ever blog-style post I’d written (and first contribution to the EA Forum), so it’s incredibly helpful that you’ve pointed out specific examples and provided alternatives—it’s helped me to see exactly what I can adjust in future. I can see for example how much more digestible the ‘Table of Contents’ is the way that you’ve drafted it (and how much more cognitive load it requires to read the ’In seeking to answer these questions [...] part as it is currently). Appreciate it a lot!
I’m very glad to have been of help. :D
(If I had more time, I’d look into the claim about delaying children leading to more successful careers to see if it’s something I need to quibble about; it feels like the sort of claim that might have correlation and causation confused. But I do not have the time to get into the weeds on this or any other point and for all I know it could be a perfectly good study. I hope more people see this article so that non-busy people can look into that!)