Just in the first few lines, we have a nitpick about the grammar of the title
I actually think this is substantial more than a nitpick. I doubt people are reading the whole of a 61(!) minute article and spot that the article doesn’t support the title.
I’ll grant the second point, I found critiquing this article extremely difficult and frustrating due to the structure and I think the EA forum would be much better if people wrote shorter articles, and it disappoints me that people seem to upvote without reading
I think the article does support the title. By my read, the post is arguing:
many EAs claim that EAs should have high risk tolerance (as in, more risk tolerance than individual investors)
but these arguments are not as strong as people claim, so we shouldn’t say EAs should have high risk tolerance
(I read “much” in the title as a synonym for “high”, I personally would have used the word “high” but I have no problem with the title.)
I agree that short posts are generally better, I did find this post long (I reviewed it before publication and it took me about 10 hours) but it’s not clear to me how to make it shorter because it’s addressing a lot of arguments. I agree with Charles Dillon’s comment that there should be a summary at the top briefly covering all the arguments, I think that would help (sadly I didn’t think of that when reviewing).
but these arguments are not as strong as people claim, so we shouldn’t say EAs should have high risk tolerance
I don’t get the same impression from reading the post especially in light of the conclusions, which even without my adjustments seems in favour of taking more risk.
I’m not sure it makes sense grammatically? “Against too much financial risk tolerance”, “Against many arguments for financial risk tolerance”?
I agree that (1) is substantial. (2) is not, and the response you give in the above comment doesn’t provide reasons to think (2) is substantial. It was (2) I was commenting on.
ETA: But perhaps now I’m nitpicking. I appreciate you acknowledging that you feel there was something to my other point. ETA2: I won’t reply further, because while I do stand by what I said, I also don’t want to distract from what seems to me the more important discussion (about substance).
I actually think this is substantial more than a nitpick. I doubt people are reading the whole of a 61(!) minute article and spot that the article doesn’t support the title.
I’ll grant the second point, I found critiquing this article extremely difficult and frustrating due to the structure and I think the EA forum would be much better if people wrote shorter articles, and it disappoints me that people seem to upvote without reading
I think the article does support the title. By my read, the post is arguing:
many EAs claim that EAs should have high risk tolerance (as in, more risk tolerance than individual investors)
but these arguments are not as strong as people claim, so we shouldn’t say EAs should have high risk tolerance
(I read “much” in the title as a synonym for “high”, I personally would have used the word “high” but I have no problem with the title.)
I agree that short posts are generally better, I did find this post long (I reviewed it before publication and it took me about 10 hours) but it’s not clear to me how to make it shorter because it’s addressing a lot of arguments. I agree with Charles Dillon’s comment that there should be a summary at the top briefly covering all the arguments, I think that would help (sadly I didn’t think of that when reviewing).
I don’t get the same impression from reading the post especially in light of the conclusions, which even without my adjustments seems in favour of taking more risk.
You say two things.
The conclusions doesn’t seem to support that
I’m not sure it makes sense grammatically? “Against too much financial risk tolerance”, “Against many arguments for financial risk tolerance”?
I agree that (1) is substantial. (2) is not, and the response you give in the above comment doesn’t provide reasons to think (2) is substantial. It was (2) I was commenting on.
ETA: But perhaps now I’m nitpicking. I appreciate you acknowledging that you feel there was something to my other point.
ETA2: I won’t reply further, because while I do stand by what I said, I also don’t want to distract from what seems to me the more important discussion (about substance).