OK, but did the discussion Programs add something that you would not get from reading the Forum, such as nicer experience (or motivation to meet more people in person) or ideas on topics that could be also interesting to your colleagues? If so, then should there be an option without these aspects (e. g. for people less interested in more ‘dynamics navigation’ focused chats)?
Also, it could be argued that the fraction of material that people who do not participate in a discussion-based program would not read can be crucial to people’s understanding of EA. But, early-on specialization of people can be optimal. For example, consider that a person interested in global development never reads any insect welfare texts. They think about massively scaling up insect farming to enable people escape poverty. They address skepticism from insect welfare researchers by assurance of positive welfare. Thus, the researchers are motivated to find a solution optimal for humans, and insects. If everyone read introductory texts from both (all) areas, it is possible that the thought that would lead to this mutually beneficial solution would not have been developed.
did the discussion Programs add something that you would not get from reading the Forum, such as nicer experience (or motivation to meet more people in person) or ideas on topics that could be also interesting to your colleagues
Kind of. In my intro fellowship all the other people failed to show up for most of the meetings, so for 6 or 7 of the 8 meetings it was just me and the facilitator on a video chat. I didn’t really get any motivation to meet people in person from the program, not motivation to attend an EA event. The biggest benefit for me was the ability to bounce ideas around and have an instant response/reply, shortening the feedback loop compared to simply reading and Googling around on my own.
I likely also would have had a very different EA experience if I lived in a country with a lot of EAs and open/welcoming EA groups, or if international travel had never been impacted by COVID. I imagine in that kind of scenario I would have joined in-person events.
the fraction of material that people who do not participate in a discussion-based program would not read
I think it is possible for someone to work through a syllabus/list of resources on their own with a group of friends. And I think that working through a syllabus has a big benefit of making sure you don’t miss important topics. If I only read the things that are interesting to me then there are some relevant/important topics that I would never learn. I really enjoyed the ideas of moral cluelessness and of moral uncertainty, but I likely wouldn’t have encountered them if I was simply reading on my own.
for 6 or 7 of the 8 meetings it was just me and the facilitator on a video chat
Wow, maybe the number of people in a group could be somewhat increased.
The biggest benefit for me was the ability to bounce ideas around and have an instant response/reply, shortening the feedback loop compared to simply reading and Googling around on my own.
Ok, ah hah maybe ‘commenting sprees’ could be implemented in a otherwise this aspect can be difficult to imitate in a written form.
I think something like that could work decently. Perhaps something like a a two hour block of time when people are all encouraged to be active in the chat room or actively responding comments.
OK, but did the discussion Programs add something that you would not get from reading the Forum, such as nicer experience (or motivation to meet more people in person) or ideas on topics that could be also interesting to your colleagues? If so, then should there be an option without these aspects (e. g. for people less interested in more ‘dynamics navigation’ focused chats)?
Also, it could be argued that the fraction of material that people who do not participate in a discussion-based program would not read can be crucial to people’s understanding of EA. But, early-on specialization of people can be optimal. For example, consider that a person interested in global development never reads any insect welfare texts. They think about massively scaling up insect farming to enable people escape poverty. They address skepticism from insect welfare researchers by assurance of positive welfare. Thus, the researchers are motivated to find a solution optimal for humans, and insects. If everyone read introductory texts from both (all) areas, it is possible that the thought that would lead to this mutually beneficial solution would not have been developed.
Thanks! Yeah that makes sense.
Kind of. In my intro fellowship all the other people failed to show up for most of the meetings, so for 6 or 7 of the 8 meetings it was just me and the facilitator on a video chat. I didn’t really get any motivation to meet people in person from the program, not motivation to attend an EA event. The biggest benefit for me was the ability to bounce ideas around and have an instant response/reply, shortening the feedback loop compared to simply reading and Googling around on my own.
I likely also would have had a very different EA experience if I lived in a country with a lot of EAs and open/welcoming EA groups, or if international travel had never been impacted by COVID. I imagine in that kind of scenario I would have joined in-person events.
I think it is possible for someone to work through a syllabus/list of resources on their own with a group of friends. And I think that working through a syllabus has a big benefit of making sure you don’t miss important topics. If I only read the things that are interesting to me then there are some relevant/important topics that I would never learn. I really enjoyed the ideas of moral cluelessness and of moral uncertainty, but I likely wouldn’t have encountered them if I was simply reading on my own.
Wow, maybe the number of people in a group could be somewhat increased.
Ok, ah hah maybe ‘commenting sprees’ could be implemented in a otherwise this aspect can be difficult to imitate in a written form.
I think something like that could work decently. Perhaps something like a a two hour block of time when people are all encouraged to be active in the chat room or actively responding comments.