I largely agree with your points, particularly the idea that certain audiences have different preferences than the ‘general public’ and that rigor is more key than engagement in research.
However, my main takeaway from your comment is that research is an extremely broad term and can be relevant in many different contexts, some of which would benefit from a more engaging communication style (e.g., lobbying). So, whether comms for EA research would benefit from being more engaging really depends on the context in which that research will be communicated.
On that note, I’d like clarification on the sentence below
“I’d rather hire people who are better at choosing research questions and answering them—even if they do so in an unengaging way—than to hire people who are engaging.”
Are you referring specifically to research roles or to any role (including comms-specific roles)?
research is an extremely broad term and can be relevant in many different contexts, some of which would benefit from a more engaging communication style (e.g., lobbying). So, whether comms for EA research would benefit from being more engaging really depends on the context in which that research will be communicated.
I agree.
“I’d rather hire people who are better at choosing research questions and answering them—even if they do so in an unengaging way—than to hire people who are engaging.”
Are you referring specifically to research roles or to any role (including comms-specific roles)?
I’m referring specifically to research roles (not comms roles) that are at Rethink Priorities, where we usually (though not always) aim to influence more insular EA-oriented actors and thus (typically) prioritize rigor over engagingness.
Yes! I strongly agree with your follow-up. I think that more EA orgs should invest in communications strategy, which typically looks very different from mass outreach (where engagingness is more important). Correspondingly, I think we need more EAs who understand comms as well as EAs who can do mass outreach.
I largely agree with your points, particularly the idea that certain audiences have different preferences than the ‘general public’ and that rigor is more key than engagement in research.
However, my main takeaway from your comment is that research is an extremely broad term and can be relevant in many different contexts, some of which would benefit from a more engaging communication style (e.g., lobbying). So, whether comms for EA research would benefit from being more engaging really depends on the context in which that research will be communicated.
On that note, I’d like clarification on the sentence below
Are you referring specifically to research roles or to any role (including comms-specific roles)?
I agree.
I’m referring specifically to research roles (not comms roles) that are at Rethink Priorities, where we usually (though not always) aim to influence more insular EA-oriented actors and thus (typically) prioritize rigor over engagingness.
This comment I wrote is relevant to your comment too, as a follow-up to my other answer.
Yes! I strongly agree with your follow-up. I think that more EA orgs should invest in communications strategy, which typically looks very different from mass outreach (where engagingness is more important). Correspondingly, I think we need more EAs who understand comms as well as EAs who can do mass outreach.