On unauthorized eponymous-naming. I’m excited to see rewards going to under-recognised altruists, and appreciate a bunch of the stuff you guys have been doing.
That said, I don’t quite understand the strategy of naming the prize after Harry Truman without approval from his estate, after all, many of his grandchildren seem to still be alive today (and I’ve confirmed some weeks ago that you’ve not done this). I’ve not carefully researched the question, but I get the impression this is a somewhat shifty practice. Firstly, the usual recommended practice is to gain consent [1]. Secondly, as a consequence of that, naming a prize after someone gives an impression that the prize is approved by someone connected to the named person, otherwise it is a bit misleading. Thirdly, it could actually undermine the prize’s prestige. Both because of any perception of the aforementioned shiftiness, and because it doesn’t seem fancy to tout receipt of a prize whose name has changed, or is changing, due to the organisers having been confronted by an unhappy family.
There are also some concrete reasons: I know of an org having to change its (unauthorised eponymous) name in the past, and I know of another project that had to change its name for this and other related reasons.
That said, I would be happy to hear counterarguments!
NB. I did sent a draft of essentially this comment to Nonlinear a couple of weeks ago, to give an opportunity to respond.
---
[1]. e.g. the ACM, which requires, before instantiating a prize, that “A statement of permission for the use of the name from the person named (if living) or the person’s estate”
Having now done some research, I really don’t think this is a thing to worry about. The Truman presidential library is run by the National Archives and Records Administration, without the involvement of the family, or a foundation (unlike those of living and recently deceased presidents.) There is a Truman Foundation, but it does not operate as part of his estate, and seems to have no connection to the family. There seems to be no estate which even could give permission to use the name. I don’t think anyone has the impression that Truman’s family or estate authorized this, and as above, from my research, they couldn’t now have done so, as there is no-one authorized to do it. Overall, it seems like it’s really not a problem.
And the ACM rules are for living and recently deceased individuals, not historical figures—and while I could see an argument that people who died a half century ago might still be a problem, I don’t think it holds water.
How confident are you that getting permission is the normal practice? I guess it feels a very small amount strange given that you could put up a statue of them or whatever.
Medium. It’s what the ACM says, what the Simon Institute and (IIRC) the Parfit Scholarships did, I heard previously from a person like me at Oxford that doing this without authorisation seemed weird to them, and ~half of the time that unauthorized eponymous naming is tried, I’ve heard of it causing problems.
Edit: if you named a thing after someone from many centuries ago—Socrates, Bentham, etc that would seem better, because a request from relatives to stop using the name would be less credible, and it doesn’t give an impression that the prize was actually associated with that person.
But there are surely people who have a better sense.
Yeah, I agree we should consult a lawyer about it, but it’s 50 years after his death, which seems like a sufficient time that objections about reputation or damage to his estate wouldn’t hold water.
Edit: See other response—this should not be a problem.
Per my other comment, it seems there isn’t anyone to “confront us,” or at least, no one who obviously can authorize this, which makes objections seem unlikely and unreasonable.
Ryan, glad you liked the prize, and thanks for your feedback! Our partner has significant IP law and branding experience and does not share your concerns.
His perspective: the general case is that
Celebrating our ancestors is common practice. Long-dead famous people frequently get things named after them.
Negative outcomes are unlikely. What you’re proposing could happen, but is quite an edge case.
Branding is important. A better-named prize can lead to more impact and improved community health.
So why are we calling this “The Truman Prize?” instead of something like “The Anonymous EA Award”?
There’s a reason why inspiring people from the past get things named after them. Could write a whole post on our thinking around this, but let’s just say we think having a community health prize with a more inspiring name would be more effective and lead to more impact.
Spending a lot of time on preventing low probability, low downside possibilities, is low EV.
Things like this usually end up being really bureaucratic and could take months or years to approve, so the cost is higher than a simple quick email. Following this general approach to low probability, low downside risks, would lead to it being prohibitive to get things done.
It’s low probability because first, a descendant of Truman would have to
Actually learn of this prize which is unlikely
Not feel like we are honoring Truman by celebrating anonymous altruism, which seems unlikely.
Care enough to actually ask us to change the name, which is also unlikely.
And in the unlikely event that all three of those things happen, then we’ll just change the name. Which is also low cost.
I’m less certain that this is a low-probability risk, though I agree that it is honoring him, and should not be a problem. That said, I think we need to look into this and check with a lawyer—as I’m pretty sure the estate doesn’t have perpetual rights to prevent naming after someone. If that’s incorrect, we should consider a different name.
I’m confused why this is downvoted. The only connection with Truman I see is the the quote attributed to him at the top of the post. Drew’s comment implies that Truman himself was an inspiring person—perhaps it’s worth explaining what was inspiring about him besides him coining a relevant quote?
I also noticed unorthodox voting patterns on this post—my first comment was downvoted the minute I posted it. But it doesn’t seem like many people would look at that criticism (polite, constructive, sent to the authors in advance) and think it should have negative karma. So basically, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
I don’t know why sphor’s comment was downvoted (I’m also confused by that), but for Ryan’s, I can at least speak for myself of why I downvoted it:
I strongly disagree with the comment and think that
This sort of thinking is paralyzing for the EA movement and leads to way more potential founders giving up on ideas, bouncing from the EA movement, not posting on the Forum, or moving so slowly that a lot of impact is lost. (I might write a post about this because I think it’s important and neglected in the movement)
It derails the conversation on something I consider to be a small detail about an improbable small-downside outcome, and I wanted more people focusing on more fruitful potential criticisms or points about the prize.
While a lot of the comment was polite and constructive, it also said that we were being “shifty”, which felt unnecessarily accusatory. I think if that word was changed I would change it from a strong downvote to just a downvote
Of note, I just strongly disagree with this comment/idea. In general, I think Ryan is great and consider him a friend.
On unauthorized eponymous-naming. I’m excited to see rewards going to under-recognised altruists, and appreciate a bunch of the stuff you guys have been doing.
That said, I don’t quite understand the strategy of naming the prize after Harry Truman without approval from his estate, after all, many of his grandchildren seem to still be alive today (and I’ve confirmed some weeks ago that you’ve not done this). I’ve not carefully researched the question, but I get the impression this is a somewhat shifty practice. Firstly, the usual recommended practice is to gain consent [1]. Secondly, as a consequence of that, naming a prize after someone gives an impression that the prize is approved by someone connected to the named person, otherwise it is a bit misleading. Thirdly, it could actually undermine the prize’s prestige. Both because of any perception of the aforementioned shiftiness, and because it doesn’t seem fancy to tout receipt of a prize whose name has changed, or is changing, due to the organisers having been confronted by an unhappy family.
There are also some concrete reasons: I know of an org having to change its (unauthorised eponymous) name in the past, and I know of another project that had to change its name for this and other related reasons.
That said, I would be happy to hear counterarguments!
NB. I did sent a draft of essentially this comment to Nonlinear a couple of weeks ago, to give an opportunity to respond.
---
[1]. e.g. the ACM, which requires, before instantiating a prize, that “A statement of permission for the use of the name from the person named (if living) or the person’s estate”
Hi Ryan,
Having now done some research, I really don’t think this is a thing to worry about. The Truman presidential library is run by the National Archives and Records Administration, without the involvement of the family, or a foundation (unlike those of living and recently deceased presidents.) There is a Truman Foundation, but it does not operate as part of his estate, and seems to have no connection to the family. There seems to be no estate which even could give permission to use the name. I don’t think anyone has the impression that Truman’s family or estate authorized this, and as above, from my research, they couldn’t now have done so, as there is no-one authorized to do it. Overall, it seems like it’s really not a problem.
And the ACM rules are for living and recently deceased individuals, not historical figures—and while I could see an argument that people who died a half century ago might still be a problem, I don’t think it holds water.
How confident are you that getting permission is the normal practice? I guess it feels a very small amount strange given that you could put up a statue of them or whatever.
Medium. It’s what the ACM says, what the Simon Institute and (IIRC) the Parfit Scholarships did, I heard previously from a person like me at Oxford that doing this without authorisation seemed weird to them, and ~half of the time that unauthorized eponymous naming is tried, I’ve heard of it causing problems.
Edit: if you named a thing after someone from many centuries ago—Socrates, Bentham, etc that would seem better, because a request from relatives to stop using the name would be less credible, and it doesn’t give an impression that the prize was actually associated with that person.
But there are surely people who have a better sense.
Yeah, I agree we should consult a lawyer about it, but it’s 50 years after his death, which seems like a sufficient time that objections about reputation or damage to his estate wouldn’t hold water.
Edit: See other response—this should not be a problem.
FWIW, my guess would be that it is, or can be, legal, but that if they confronted you, you would want to change the name anyway.
Per my other comment, it seems there isn’t anyone to “confront us,” or at least, no one who obviously can authorize this, which makes objections seem unlikely and unreasonable.
Ryan, glad you liked the prize, and thanks for your feedback! Our partner has significant IP law and branding experience and does not share your concerns.
His perspective: the general case is that
Celebrating our ancestors is common practice. Long-dead famous people frequently get things named after them.
Negative outcomes are unlikely. What you’re proposing could happen, but is quite an edge case.
Branding is important. A better-named prize can lead to more impact and improved community health.
So why are we calling this “The Truman Prize?” instead of something like “The Anonymous EA Award”?
There’s a reason why inspiring people from the past get things named after them. Could write a whole post on our thinking around this, but let’s just say we think having a community health prize with a more inspiring name would be more effective and lead to more impact.
Spending a lot of time on preventing low probability, low downside possibilities, is low EV.
Things like this usually end up being really bureaucratic and could take months or years to approve, so the cost is higher than a simple quick email. Following this general approach to low probability, low downside risks, would lead to it being prohibitive to get things done.
It’s low probability because first, a descendant of Truman would have to
Actually learn of this prize which is unlikely
Not feel like we are honoring Truman by celebrating anonymous altruism, which seems unlikely.
Care enough to actually ask us to change the name, which is also unlikely.
And in the unlikely event that all three of those things happen, then we’ll just change the name. Which is also low cost.
I’m less certain that this is a low-probability risk, though I agree that it is honoring him, and should not be a problem. That said, I think we need to look into this and check with a lawyer—as I’m pretty sure the estate doesn’t have perpetual rights to prevent naming after someone. If that’s incorrect, we should consider a different name.
What was inspiring about Truman?
I’m confused why this is downvoted. The only connection with Truman I see is the the quote attributed to him at the top of the post. Drew’s comment implies that Truman himself was an inspiring person—perhaps it’s worth explaining what was inspiring about him besides him coining a relevant quote?
I also noticed unorthodox voting patterns on this post—my first comment was downvoted the minute I posted it. But it doesn’t seem like many people would look at that criticism (polite, constructive, sent to the authors in advance) and think it should have negative karma. So basically, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
I don’t know why sphor’s comment was downvoted (I’m also confused by that), but for Ryan’s, I can at least speak for myself of why I downvoted it:
I strongly disagree with the comment and think that
This sort of thinking is paralyzing for the EA movement and leads to way more potential founders giving up on ideas, bouncing from the EA movement, not posting on the Forum, or moving so slowly that a lot of impact is lost. (I might write a post about this because I think it’s important and neglected in the movement)
It derails the conversation on something I consider to be a small detail about an improbable small-downside outcome, and I wanted more people focusing on more fruitful potential criticisms or points about the prize.
While a lot of the comment was polite and constructive, it also said that we were being “shifty”, which felt unnecessarily accusatory. I think if that word was changed I would change it from a strong downvote to just a downvote
Of note, I just strongly disagree with this comment/idea. In general, I think Ryan is great and consider him a friend.