I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
It seems unfair to me that people are downvoting me without reading my article. What function does the downvote serve except to suppress ideas if those using it are not even reading the article?
I think it’s fine to vote on expectation. I did, then reread your article and I endorse my vote, so mainly I’d have saved the time reading it.
In my policy proposal, I am not advocating for forcing this on people. I do say:
In governments with restrictions on selection on the basis of cognitive traits, advocates for genetic enhancement should lobby for reproductive autonomy.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is. Or like I read about half the article and skimmed the rest. So I assumed given the title you wanted to trial it in the developing world, was I wrong?
I want to make the technology available for voluntary use, and I think that should be EAs aim.
Sure then write that article. I think “lets legalise genetic testing in the west” is a much less controversial article. Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
It seems that I am failing in communicating my message through my article, so please help me to be better. What more can I do to be persuasive or better present my message in a way that aligns with EA virtues?
Write shorter pieces where your recommendations are really clear and definitely not awful stuff. If this piece was “I think we should run genetic engineering companies in israel, where it’s both legal and desired” I think it could have a better reaction.
I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
I don’t know how to respond to this.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is.
It’s clearly laid out in a list at the end of 8 points in the conclusion. I am not advocating for awful stuff, nor illegal stuff, nor coercive stuff. I don’t want to trial it there—but I want the developing world to have access to this technology so couples can voluntarily use it.
Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
No. I think people are either not reading it or being deliberately dishonest and I don’t think it’s because of the title.
Well I have spend like an hour on your post and only just found the policy proposals. Why not put them at the top? Or with a heading?
Also I don’t really see what your policies have to do with ending poverty—seems like if successful these would be taken up in the west and then there would still be huge amounts of poverty.
I agree that many people will downvote your piece without reading it (though many will upvote for the same reason, and it seems there is some of both going on here) but I really did try and read it and it was soooooo long and very unclear. Maybe my thoughts don’t matter to you, but if you want my advice, clear writing involves the audience taking away what you intended from the piece. I don’t think you’ve succeed with me, despite my spending 30 − 60 minutes on it.
I don’t enjoy responses that are 3x as long as the message I wrote.
I think it’s fine to vote on expectation. I did, then reread your article and I endorse my vote, so mainly I’d have saved the time reading it.
So I think another issues is that you don’t really make clear what your policy proposal is. Or like I read about half the article and skimmed the rest. So I assumed given the title you wanted to trial it in the developing world, was I wrong?
Sure then write that article. I think “lets legalise genetic testing in the west” is a much less controversial article. Are you deliberately framing your ideas in a way that they can be misinterpreted?
Write shorter pieces where your recommendations are really clear and definitely not awful stuff. If this piece was “I think we should run genetic engineering companies in israel, where it’s both legal and desired” I think it could have a better reaction.
I don’t know how to respond to this.
It’s clearly laid out in a list at the end of 8 points in the conclusion. I am not advocating for awful stuff, nor illegal stuff, nor coercive stuff. I don’t want to trial it there—but I want the developing world to have access to this technology so couples can voluntarily use it.
No. I think people are either not reading it or being deliberately dishonest and I don’t think it’s because of the title.
Well I have spend like an hour on your post and only just found the policy proposals. Why not put them at the top? Or with a heading?
Also I don’t really see what your policies have to do with ending poverty—seems like if successful these would be taken up in the west and then there would still be huge amounts of poverty.
I agree that many people will downvote your piece without reading it (though many will upvote for the same reason, and it seems there is some of both going on here) but I really did try and read it and it was soooooo long and very unclear. Maybe my thoughts don’t matter to you, but if you want my advice, clear writing involves the audience taking away what you intended from the piece. I don’t think you’ve succeed with me, despite my spending 30 − 60 minutes on it.