You espouse a bizarre cliquishness, by your claim. Look at the outcome it generates: you fail to hear new information from outside your bubble. Your claim does not become virtuous or correct, nor does it facilitate progress—you’re just claiming it to feel right.
(Here is a brutal answer but maybe helpful at this point.)
I haven’t read every comment of yours but my sense is that you are frustrated that no one has engaged with your idea.
One issue with this sentiment is that there is little or nothing in EA that is like “a fully general engine” for taking someone’s paragraphs of thoughts and executing on it. (This isn’t true but complicated/political to explain).
EA provides a lot of resources, but this takes some leg work and demonstration to get going. This price of entry is a good thing. There is a lot of horsepower and leadership needed to execute even a pretty obvious appearing project that could almost immediately get seed or exploratory funding.
An example is the snakebite post which seems like a great potential project. But even this project’s execution is uncertain.
To be concrete, you can come up with substantially more progress and much more substantial and credible work and no one needs to provide this for you. In fact it’s much much better you do it yourself at least in a first stage if you want your project to succeed.
(I think the above is brutal but maybe helpful. The below is brutal and probably unhelpful but it’s useful for onlookers).
There is a large supply of people who have ideas or public complaints that don’t seem to achieve progress.
When examined, the underlying issue often isn’t related with their idea in principle.
The reality is that many patterns of forum use or complaints indicate lack of effectiveness (or distinctly, telegraph a sense of powerlessness and sometimes vulnerability). So their repeatedly posting is sort of an anti pattern that makes sure not many people take them seriously.
I am frustrated that I am repeatedly misrepresented, which is what I said in my responses. I am not frustrated by a lack of “people doing leg work for me”. I am specifically asking if anyone has connections toward the relevant specialists, so that I can talk to those specialists. I’m not sure why that would be “something I should do on my own”—I’m literally reaching out to gather specialists, which is the first leg work, obviously. Re-inventing the wheel to impress an audience by “going it alone” is actually counter-productive.
I don’t need a “fully general engine”—you are misrepresenting my request, as others have. I am asking if anyone knows someone with the relevant background. I am NOT asking for funding, nor a general protocol that addresses every post. Those are strawmen. No one has apologized for these strawmen; they just ghost the conversation.
And, if you are using the fact that I stood-up to repeated mis-representations as “telegraph a sense of powerlessness and sometimes vulnerability”, and as a result, I should not be taken seriously, then you are squashing the only means of recourse available to me. When my request is repeatedly mis-represented, and I respond to each of them, I am necessarily “repeatedly posting”—I’m not sure why that noisy proxy for “lack of effectiveness” is a better signal for you than actually reading what I wrote.
You’ve responded with hostility and intense frustration to Linch and Khorton, who are goofy, but well meaning people. That’s really bad and you should stop writing like this. (EDIT: also Jeff Kaufman).
(Note that I suspect there something unseemly about my personal conduct in replying to you. To myself, in my head, I think I am doing it because it provides useful information to onlookers, because this would be mansplaining in other circumstances. I need to think about this.)
The brutal truth is that “specialist” access is sort of like gold. I and most people wouldn’t give someone with this account access to any specialists because this is unpromising but also because these relationships are valuable and reflect on them.
Separately, I think hard, esoteric projects in EA deserve real seed or exploratory funding. I am not really following to be honest, but the fact that you have this thread about misrepresentation might be because there is some underlying issue you don’t understand this or how projects are executed.
It’s also telling that, though I pointed-out how you sought to use “repeated posting” as a proxy for my “powerlessness and vulnerability...lack of effectiveness”, you made no mention of it, afterwards. Judging someone on such shallow evidence is the opposite of skeptical inquiry; it doesn’t bode well for your own effectiveness. Am I being hostile when I say that to you, while you are NOT hostile, when you say it to me, first?
When I am repeatedly misrepresented, and no one who does so responds with an apology, I am supposed to adhere to your standards of dialogue? Why are my standards not respected, first?
If specialist access is gold, then what do I need to pay them? I’ll figure funding separately—who, and how much?
Exploratory work is great—yet, as Jeff was saying in this exact thread’s original post—EA needs to be willing to take the leap on risky new ideas. That was, also, the part of his post that I quoted, in my original response. Do you see how they are related to what we are talking about? Perhaps EA should take a risk, and connect me to a specialist, and if EA thinks that specialist should be paid, I’ll work that out, next.
You espouse a bizarre cliquishness, by your claim. Look at the outcome it generates: you fail to hear new information from outside your bubble. Your claim does not become virtuous or correct, nor does it facilitate progress—you’re just claiming it to feel right.
(Here is a brutal answer but maybe helpful at this point.)
I haven’t read every comment of yours but my sense is that you are frustrated that no one has engaged with your idea.
One issue with this sentiment is that there is little or nothing in EA that is like “a fully general engine” for taking someone’s paragraphs of thoughts and executing on it. (This isn’t true but complicated/political to explain).
EA provides a lot of resources, but this takes some leg work and demonstration to get going. This price of entry is a good thing. There is a lot of horsepower and leadership needed to execute even a pretty obvious appearing project that could almost immediately get seed or exploratory funding.
An example is the snakebite post which seems like a great potential project. But even this project’s execution is uncertain.
To be concrete, you can come up with substantially more progress and much more substantial and credible work and no one needs to provide this for you. In fact it’s much much better you do it yourself at least in a first stage if you want your project to succeed.
(I think the above is brutal but maybe helpful. The below is brutal and probably unhelpful but it’s useful for onlookers).
There is a large supply of people who have ideas or public complaints that don’t seem to achieve progress.
When examined, the underlying issue often isn’t related with their idea in principle.
The reality is that many patterns of forum use or complaints indicate lack of effectiveness (or distinctly, telegraph a sense of powerlessness and sometimes vulnerability). So their repeatedly posting is sort of an anti pattern that makes sure not many people take them seriously.
I am frustrated that I am repeatedly misrepresented, which is what I said in my responses. I am not frustrated by a lack of “people doing leg work for me”. I am specifically asking if anyone has connections toward the relevant specialists, so that I can talk to those specialists. I’m not sure why that would be “something I should do on my own”—I’m literally reaching out to gather specialists, which is the first leg work, obviously. Re-inventing the wheel to impress an audience by “going it alone” is actually counter-productive.
I don’t need a “fully general engine”—you are misrepresenting my request, as others have. I am asking if anyone knows someone with the relevant background. I am NOT asking for funding, nor a general protocol that addresses every post. Those are strawmen. No one has apologized for these strawmen; they just ghost the conversation.
And, if you are using the fact that I stood-up to repeated mis-representations as “telegraph a sense of powerlessness and sometimes vulnerability”, and as a result, I should not be taken seriously, then you are squashing the only means of recourse available to me. When my request is repeatedly mis-represented, and I respond to each of them, I am necessarily “repeatedly posting”—I’m not sure why that noisy proxy for “lack of effectiveness” is a better signal for you than actually reading what I wrote.
You’ve responded with hostility and intense frustration to Linch and Khorton, who are goofy, but well meaning people. That’s really bad and you should stop writing like this. (EDIT: also Jeff Kaufman).
(Note that I suspect there something unseemly about my personal conduct in replying to you. To myself, in my head, I think I am doing it because it provides useful information to onlookers, because this would be mansplaining in other circumstances. I need to think about this.)
The brutal truth is that “specialist” access is sort of like gold. I and most people wouldn’t give someone with this account access to any specialists because this is unpromising but also because these relationships are valuable and reflect on them.
Separately, I think hard, esoteric projects in EA deserve real seed or exploratory funding. I am not really following to be honest, but the fact that you have this thread about misrepresentation might be because there is some underlying issue you don’t understand this or how projects are executed.
It’s also telling that, though I pointed-out how you sought to use “repeated posting” as a proxy for my “powerlessness and vulnerability...lack of effectiveness”, you made no mention of it, afterwards. Judging someone on such shallow evidence is the opposite of skeptical inquiry; it doesn’t bode well for your own effectiveness. Am I being hostile when I say that to you, while you are NOT hostile, when you say it to me, first?
When I am repeatedly misrepresented, and no one who does so responds with an apology, I am supposed to adhere to your standards of dialogue? Why are my standards not respected, first?
If specialist access is gold, then what do I need to pay them? I’ll figure funding separately—who, and how much?
Exploratory work is great—yet, as Jeff was saying in this exact thread’s original post—EA needs to be willing to take the leap on risky new ideas. That was, also, the part of his post that I quoted, in my original response. Do you see how they are related to what we are talking about? Perhaps EA should take a risk, and connect me to a specialist, and if EA thinks that specialist should be paid, I’ll work that out, next.