Random comment: Do you or anyone else have any comments about the use of terminology with negative connotations, like “gatekeeping” or “elite”?
Background (unnecessary to read):
Basically I’ve been using the word “gatekeeping” a fair bit.
This word seems to be an accurate description of principled, prosocial activity to create functional teams or institutions. It includes activities no one finds surprising there is control over, such as grant making.
To see this another way, basically, someone somewhere (Party A) has given funding to achieve maximum impact for something (Party B), and we need people (Party C) to cause this to happen in some way. We owe Party A and B a lot, and that usually includes some sort of selection/control over party C.
Also, I think that “gatekeeping” seems particularly important in the early stages of founding a cause area or set of initiatives, where such activity seems necessary or has to occur by definition. In these situations, it seems less vulnerable to real or perceived abuse or at least insularity, at the same time it seems useful and virtuous to signpost and explain what gatekeeping is and what the parameters and intentions are.
Now, “elite” has the same problem (“elitism”). It is also an important, genuine and technical thing to consider and signpost, but it can also be associated with real or perceived misuse.
Maybe it’s tenable if I use just “gatekeeping”. I’m worried if I start passing docs, posts or comments around, filled mention of both “gatekeeping” and “elites” and terms of art from who knows what else (from various disciplines, not just EA), it might offend or at least look insensitive.
I guess I can change the words with another.
However, I dislike it when people change words for political reasons. It seems like bad practice for a number of reasons, for example imposing cognitive/jargon costs on everyone.
I’m not sure if you have any thoughts. I thought I would write this because this seems like one of those things that needs input from others.
I definitely think it’s important to pay attention to language when a simple substitution can avoid issues. Maybe it’d be better to use the word “evaluation” or “stewardship” rather than “gatekeeping”?
“High-impact” might also be a good substitute for “elite”.
However, I dislike it when people change words for political reasons. It seems like bad practice for a number of reasons, for example imposing cognitive/jargon costs on everyone.
I would suggest using contentious words when substitutes would significantly impede communication or obscure the point being made, but otherwise being flexible.
Random comment: Do you or anyone else have any comments about the use of terminology with negative connotations, like “gatekeeping” or “elite”?
Background (unnecessary to read):
Basically I’ve been using the word “gatekeeping” a fair bit.
This word seems to be an accurate description of principled, prosocial activity to create functional teams or institutions. It includes activities no one finds surprising there is control over, such as grant making.
To see this another way, basically, someone somewhere (Party A) has given funding to achieve maximum impact for something (Party B), and we need people (Party C) to cause this to happen in some way. We owe Party A and B a lot, and that usually includes some sort of selection/control over party C.
Also, I think that “gatekeeping” seems particularly important in the early stages of founding a cause area or set of initiatives, where such activity seems necessary or has to occur by definition. In these situations, it seems less vulnerable to real or perceived abuse or at least insularity, at the same time it seems useful and virtuous to signpost and explain what gatekeeping is and what the parameters and intentions are.
However, gatekeeping is basically a slur in common use.
Now, “elite” has the same problem (“elitism”). It is also an important, genuine and technical thing to consider and signpost, but it can also be associated with real or perceived misuse.
Maybe it’s tenable if I use just “gatekeeping”. I’m worried if I start passing docs, posts or comments around, filled mention of both “gatekeeping” and “elites” and terms of art from who knows what else (from various disciplines, not just EA), it might offend or at least look insensitive.
I guess I can change the words with another.
However, I dislike it when people change words for political reasons. It seems like bad practice for a number of reasons, for example imposing cognitive/jargon costs on everyone.
I’m not sure if you have any thoughts. I thought I would write this because this seems like one of those things that needs input from others.
I definitely think it’s important to pay attention to language when a simple substitution can avoid issues. Maybe it’d be better to use the word “evaluation” or “stewardship” rather than “gatekeeping”?
“High-impact” might also be a good substitute for “elite”.
I would suggest using contentious words when substitutes would significantly impede communication or obscure the point being made, but otherwise being flexible.