My initial thoughts are similar to those of Adam and Linch, but I’ll post them here anyway, despite possible redundancy:
If someone learns about an EA concept in detail, they might be able to use that to generate unique insights or follow-up, even if many other people already knew a lot about that concept. Reasons this might happen:
They are more up-to-date on the concept than others who learned about it a while ago (e.g. they’ve read very recent studies related to the concept)
They bring unique “outside knowledge” to the concept (e.g. they have a background in sociology, which none of the other people who knew about the concept had)
They have the time/skill to write out what they know in a way that a much wider audience can understand without much effort, which wasn’t the case for the others
They have access to funding/other resources that the others didn’t have (e.g. they can pay for a massive survey to gather direct data that furthers their knowledge, or they’re in touch with experts in the relevant field who can help to deepen their knowledge)
Learning about concepts in detail seems important if someone might pursue a career in one of several fields. I’d want them to make such a decision based on a lot of firsthand information about each field, in addition to whatever shared resources the EA community can contribute (as personal characteristics and background play a big role in how well someone’s career will go in a given field)
Someone who learns about a concept in detail might wind up explaining it (in less detail) to people they know personally who might otherwise never learn about it. Even if the community provides many “authoritative” sources of written knowledge, it’s still hard to replace the benefit of having someone you know explain something to you and answer your questions in real time.
Similarly, they might be able to persuade other people with their combination of knowledge + personal connection. Many members of this community are only here because someone they knew persuaded them to get involved, and I’m guessing that “go read this article” is less persuasive than “let me tell you about this exciting thing that I’m clearly well-informed about”
Learning about things in detail builds good epistemic habits related to understanding how research works and so on. The more people in EA have good epistemic habits, the less likely it is that we’ll miss something obvious or be vulnerable to bad arguments, scams, etc.
My initial thoughts are similar to those of Adam and Linch, but I’ll post them here anyway, despite possible redundancy:
If someone learns about an EA concept in detail, they might be able to use that to generate unique insights or follow-up, even if many other people already knew a lot about that concept. Reasons this might happen:
They are more up-to-date on the concept than others who learned about it a while ago (e.g. they’ve read very recent studies related to the concept)
They bring unique “outside knowledge” to the concept (e.g. they have a background in sociology, which none of the other people who knew about the concept had)
They have the time/skill to write out what they know in a way that a much wider audience can understand without much effort, which wasn’t the case for the others
They have access to funding/other resources that the others didn’t have (e.g. they can pay for a massive survey to gather direct data that furthers their knowledge, or they’re in touch with experts in the relevant field who can help to deepen their knowledge)
Learning about concepts in detail seems important if someone might pursue a career in one of several fields. I’d want them to make such a decision based on a lot of firsthand information about each field, in addition to whatever shared resources the EA community can contribute (as personal characteristics and background play a big role in how well someone’s career will go in a given field)
Someone who learns about a concept in detail might wind up explaining it (in less detail) to people they know personally who might otherwise never learn about it. Even if the community provides many “authoritative” sources of written knowledge, it’s still hard to replace the benefit of having someone you know explain something to you and answer your questions in real time.
Similarly, they might be able to persuade other people with their combination of knowledge + personal connection. Many members of this community are only here because someone they knew persuaded them to get involved, and I’m guessing that “go read this article” is less persuasive than “let me tell you about this exciting thing that I’m clearly well-informed about”
Learning about things in detail builds good epistemic habits related to understanding how research works and so on. The more people in EA have good epistemic habits, the less likely it is that we’ll miss something obvious or be vulnerable to bad arguments, scams, etc.