I think this post makes many correct observations about the EA movement, but it draws the wrong conclusions.
For example, it’s true that EAs will sometimes use uncommon phrases like “tail-risk” and “tractability”. But that’s because these are important concepts! Heck, just “probability” is a word that might scare off most people too. But it would be a mistake to water down one’s language to attract as many people as possible.
More generally, the EA movement isn’t trying to grow as fast as possible. It’s not trying to get everyone’s attention. Instead, it’s trying to specifically reach those people who are sympathetic to an evidence-based approach to helping others. Bare emotional appeals risk attracting the wrong kind of people and misrepresent what EA is all about.
There’s a place for stories to motivate and inspire, but if they’re divorced from engagement with data and careful reasoning, EA stops being EA.
I think this post makes many correct observations about the EA movement, but it draws the wrong conclusions.
For example, it’s true that EAs will sometimes use uncommon phrases like “tail-risk” and “tractability”. But that’s because these are important concepts! Heck, just “probability” is a word that might scare off most people too. But it would be a mistake to water down one’s language to attract as many people as possible.
More generally, the EA movement isn’t trying to grow as fast as possible. It’s not trying to get everyone’s attention. Instead, it’s trying to specifically reach those people who are sympathetic to an evidence-based approach to helping others. Bare emotional appeals risk attracting the wrong kind of people and misrepresent what EA is all about.
There’s a place for stories to motivate and inspire, but if they’re divorced from engagement with data and careful reasoning, EA stops being EA.