Is a more precise idea: “EA should spend less time trying to recruit from philosophy, economics and STEM, in order to spend more time trying to recruit from the humanities and social studies”?
Edit: although with philosophy and economics, those are already humanities and social studies...
I think this is revealing of the shortcomings of making decisions using this kind of upvoted and downvoted poll, in that the results will be highly dependent on the “vibe” or exact wording of a proposal.
I think your wording would end up with a negative score, but if instead I phrased it as “the split between STEM and humanity focus should be 80-20 instead of 90-10” (using made up numbers), then it might swing the other way again. The wording is a way of arguing while pretending we’re not arguing.
We should recruit more from every field.
Is a more precise idea: “EA should spend less time trying to recruit from philosophy, economics and STEM, in order to spend more time trying to recruit from the humanities and social studies”?
Edit: although with philosophy and economics, those are already humanities and social studies...
I think this is revealing of the shortcomings of making decisions using this kind of upvoted and downvoted poll, in that the results will be highly dependent on the “vibe” or exact wording of a proposal.
I think your wording would end up with a negative score, but if instead I phrased it as “the split between STEM and humanity focus should be 80-20 instead of 90-10” (using made up numbers), then it might swing the other way again. The wording is a way of arguing while pretending we’re not arguing.
I think the format is fine, you just have to write a clear and actionable proposal, with unambiguous meaning.