I donāt know of a practical scenario where either of those turned out to be bad advice
(I donāt mean to pick too hard on this point, which is generally pointing at something true, but a counterexample sprang immediately to mind when I read it.)
I know one medical student who wound up perceiving EA somewhat negatively after reading 80Kās early writing on the perils of being a doctor. This person is still fairly value-aligned and makes EA donations, but I saw them engage with the community much less than Iād have otherwise expected, because they thought they would face judgment for their career path and choices. (Even without being an EA specialist, this person is smart and capable and could have made substantial community contributions.)
This person would almost certainly have had greater impact in EA-aligned operations or research, but theyād also dreamed of becoming a doctor since early childhood, and their relationship with their family was somewhat contingent on their following through on those dreams. (A combination of āMom and Dad would be heartbroken if I chose a different career with no status in their communityā and āI want to have a high-paying job so I can provide financial support to my family laterā).
Hence the strong reaction to the idea of a movement where being a doctor was a slightly odd, suspicious thing to do (at least, that was their takeaway from the 80K piece, and I found the impression hard to shake).
This kind of story may be unusual, but I consider it to be one practical example of a time when the advice ādonāt become a doctorā led to a bad resultāthough itās arguable whether this makes it ābad adviceā even in that one case.
Yeah, I feel like this should just be screened off by whether it is indeed good or bad career advice.
Like, if something is good career advice, I think we should tell people even if they donāt like hearing it, and if something is bad career advice, we should tell people that even if they really want it to be true. But thatās a general stance I seem to disagree with lots of EAs on, but at least for me, it isnāt very cruxy whether anyone didnāt like what that advice sounded like.
I donāt disagree with elements of this stanceāthis kind of career advice is probably strongly positive-EV to share in some form with the average medical student.
But I think thereās a strong argument for at least trying to frame advice carefully if you have a good idea of how someone will react to different frames. And messages like ātell people X even if they donāt like hearing itā can obscure the importance of framing. I think that what advice sounds like to people can often be decisive in how they react, even if the most important thing is actually giving the good advice.
Marginal effort on making the information present better is totally valuable, and there is of course some level of bad presentation where it should be higher priority to improve your presentation than your accuracy, but my guess is in this case we are far from the relevant thresholds, and generally would want us to value marginal accuracy as quite a bit higher than marginal palatableness.
(I donāt mean to pick too hard on this point, which is generally pointing at something true, but a counterexample sprang immediately to mind when I read it.)
I know one medical student who wound up perceiving EA somewhat negatively after reading 80Kās early writing on the perils of being a doctor. This person is still fairly value-aligned and makes EA donations, but I saw them engage with the community much less than Iād have otherwise expected, because they thought they would face judgment for their career path and choices. (Even without being an EA specialist, this person is smart and capable and could have made substantial community contributions.)
This person would almost certainly have had greater impact in EA-aligned operations or research, but theyād also dreamed of becoming a doctor since early childhood, and their relationship with their family was somewhat contingent on their following through on those dreams. (A combination of āMom and Dad would be heartbroken if I chose a different career with no status in their communityā and āI want to have a high-paying job so I can provide financial support to my family laterā).
Hence the strong reaction to the idea of a movement where being a doctor was a slightly odd, suspicious thing to do (at least, that was their takeaway from the 80K piece, and I found the impression hard to shake).
This kind of story may be unusual, but I consider it to be one practical example of a time when the advice ādonāt become a doctorā led to a bad resultāthough itās arguable whether this makes it ābad adviceā even in that one case.
Yeah, I feel like this should just be screened off by whether it is indeed good or bad career advice.
Like, if something is good career advice, I think we should tell people even if they donāt like hearing it, and if something is bad career advice, we should tell people that even if they really want it to be true. But thatās a general stance I seem to disagree with lots of EAs on, but at least for me, it isnāt very cruxy whether anyone didnāt like what that advice sounded like.
I donāt disagree with elements of this stanceāthis kind of career advice is probably strongly positive-EV to share in some form with the average medical student.
But I think thereās a strong argument for at least trying to frame advice carefully if you have a good idea of how someone will react to different frames. And messages like ātell people X even if they donāt like hearing itā can obscure the importance of framing. I think that what advice sounds like to people can often be decisive in how they react, even if the most important thing is actually giving the good advice.
Yep, I totally agree.
Marginal effort on making the information present better is totally valuable, and there is of course some level of bad presentation where it should be higher priority to improve your presentation than your accuracy, but my guess is in this case we are far from the relevant thresholds, and generally would want us to value marginal accuracy as quite a bit higher than marginal palatableness.
Strongly endorsed.