Right but I don’t know who you are, or what your position in the US Policy Sphere is, if you have one at all. I have no way to verify your potential background or the veracity of the information you share, which is one of the major problems with anonymous accounts.
You may be correct (though again that lack of explanation doesn’t help give detail or a mechanism why or help sammy that much, as you said it depends on the section) but that isn’t really the point, the only data point you provide is “intentionally anonymous person of the EAForum states opinion without supporting explanations” which is honestly pretty weak sauce
shrug I think it would be helpful to me, and like I said the reader can take it or leave it. Thems the breaks. I think commenting from a throwaway account providing the data and letting the reader decide is better than not commenting and not providing data
Like you could explainwhy you think so without de-anonymising yourself, e.g. sammy shouldn’t put EA on his CV in US policy because:
Republicans are in control of most positions and they see EA as heavily democrat-coded and aren’t willing to consider hiring people with it
The intelligentsia who hire for most US policy positions see EA as cult-like and/or disgraced after FTX
People won’t understand what EA is on a CV will and discount sammy’s chances compared to them putting down “ran a discussion group at university” or something like that
You think EA is doomed/likely to collapse and sammy should pre-emptively dissasociate their career from it
Like I feel that would be interesting and useful to hear your perspective on, to the extend you can share information about it. Otherwise just jumping in with strong (and controversial?) opinions from anonymous accounts on the forum just serves to pollute the epistemic commons in my opinion.
If you are trying to get a US policy job than probably no, but it also depends on the section of US policy
I don’t find comments like these helpful without explanations or evidence, especially from throwaway accounts
The reader can take it or leave it given these facts, but imo it serves as a data point that someone from US Policy is pointing to this real thing.
Right but I don’t know who you are, or what your position in the US Policy Sphere is, if you have one at all. I have no way to verify your potential background or the veracity of the information you share, which is one of the major problems with anonymous accounts.
You may be correct (though again that lack of explanation doesn’t help give detail or a mechanism why or help sammy that much, as you said it depends on the section) but that isn’t really the point, the only data point you provide is “intentionally anonymous person of the EAForum states opinion without supporting explanations” which is honestly pretty weak sauce
shrug I think it would be helpful to me, and like I said the reader can take it or leave it. Thems the breaks. I think commenting from a throwaway account providing the data and letting the reader decide is better than not commenting and not providing data
But you haven’t provided any data 🤷
Like you could explain why you think so without de-anonymising yourself, e.g. sammy shouldn’t put EA on his CV in US policy because:
Republicans are in control of most positions and they see EA as heavily democrat-coded and aren’t willing to consider hiring people with it
The intelligentsia who hire for most US policy positions see EA as cult-like and/or disgraced after FTX
People won’t understand what EA is on a CV will and discount sammy’s chances compared to them putting down “ran a discussion group at university” or something like that
You think EA is doomed/likely to collapse and sammy should pre-emptively dissasociate their career from it
Like I feel that would be interesting and useful to hear your perspective on, to the extend you can share information about it. Otherwise just jumping in with strong (and controversial?) opinions from anonymous accounts on the forum just serves to pollute the epistemic commons in my opinion.