I’m half wondering how much upset was influenced by a general suspicion of or aversion about advertising and persuasion in general.
From one perspective, it’s almost as if Gleb used to be one of the “advertising/persuasion is icky” people, and decided to bite the bullet and just do this thing, even if it seemed whacked out and icky…
At first I thought maybe part of the problem was Gleb didn’t have any vision of how it could be done better. Now, I think it might actually be part of a systemic problem I keep noticing. Our social network generally does not have a clear vision of how it could be done better.
How many of us can easily think of specific strategies to promote InIn that sit well with all of your ethical standards and effectiveness criteria?
If a lot of people here are beginning with the belief that promotion is either icky or ineffective, we have set ourselves up for failure. This may encourage us to behave as if one either needs to accept being ineffective, or one needs to allow ones self to be icky … which may result in choosing whichever things appear to be the icky-effective ones.
I think effective altruism can have both ethics and effectiveness at the same time. I do not believe there is actually a trade-off where choosing one necessarily must sacrifice the other. I believe there are probably even ways where one can enhance and build on the other.
I keep thinking that it would really benefit the whole movement if more people became more aware about what sorts of things result in disasters and how to promote things well. This is another way that such awareness could be beneficial.
I’m half wondering how much upset was influenced by a general suspicion of or aversion about advertising and persuasion in general.
From one perspective, it’s almost as if Gleb used to be one of the “advertising/persuasion is icky” people, and decided to bite the bullet and just do this thing, even if it seemed whacked out and icky…
At first I thought maybe part of the problem was Gleb didn’t have any vision of how it could be done better. Now, I think it might actually be part of a systemic problem I keep noticing. Our social network generally does not have a clear vision of how it could be done better.
How many of us can easily think of specific strategies to promote InIn that sit well with all of your ethical standards and effectiveness criteria?
If a lot of people here are beginning with the belief that promotion is either icky or ineffective, we have set ourselves up for failure. This may encourage us to behave as if one either needs to accept being ineffective, or one needs to allow ones self to be icky … which may result in choosing whichever things appear to be the icky-effective ones.
I think effective altruism can have both ethics and effectiveness at the same time. I do not believe there is actually a trade-off where choosing one necessarily must sacrifice the other. I believe there are probably even ways where one can enhance and build on the other.
I keep thinking that it would really benefit the whole movement if more people became more aware about what sorts of things result in disasters and how to promote things well. This is another way that such awareness could be beneficial.
Huh, this is a good point. Having a clear sense of what to do with advertising (both within the community and without) would be really helpful.