The title and tone of this post is playing with fire, i.e courting controversy, in a way that (I think, but am not sure) undermines its goals.
A, there’s the fact that describing these as “lying” seems approximately as true as the first two claims, which other people have mentioned. In a post about holding ourselves to high standards, this is kind of a big deal. Others have mentioned this.
B: Personal integrity/honesty is only one element you need to have a good epistemic culture. Other elements you need include trust, and respect for people’s time, attention, and emotions.
Just as every decision to bend the truth has consequences, every decision to inflame emotions has consequences, and these can be just as damaging.
I assume (hope) it was a deliberate choice to use a provocative title that’d grab attention. I think part of the goal was to punish the EA Establishment for not responding well to criticism and attempting to control said criticism.
That may not be a bad choice. Maybe it’s necessary but it’s a questionable one.
The default world (see: modern politics, and news) is a race to the bottom of outrage and manufactured controversy. People love controversy. I love controversy. I felt an urge to share this article on facebook and say things off the cuff about it. I resisted, because I think it would be harmful to the epistemic integrity of EA.
Maybe it’s necessary to write a provocative title with a hazy definition of “lying” in order to get everyone’s attention and force a conversation. (In the same way it may be necessary to exaggerate global warming by 4x to get Jane Q Public to care). But it is certainly not the platonic ideal of the epistemic culture we need to build.
Issue 1:
The title and tone of this post is playing with fire, i.e courting controversy, in a way that (I think, but am not sure) undermines its goals.
A, there’s the fact that describing these as “lying” seems approximately as true as the first two claims, which other people have mentioned. In a post about holding ourselves to high standards, this is kind of a big deal. Others have mentioned this.
B: Personal integrity/honesty is only one element you need to have a good epistemic culture. Other elements you need include trust, and respect for people’s time, attention, and emotions.
Just as every decision to bend the truth has consequences, every decision to inflame emotions has consequences, and these can be just as damaging.
I assume (hope) it was a deliberate choice to use a provocative title that’d grab attention. I think part of the goal was to punish the EA Establishment for not responding well to criticism and attempting to control said criticism.
That may not be a bad choice. Maybe it’s necessary but it’s a questionable one.
The default world (see: modern politics, and news) is a race to the bottom of outrage and manufactured controversy. People love controversy. I love controversy. I felt an urge to share this article on facebook and say things off the cuff about it. I resisted, because I think it would be harmful to the epistemic integrity of EA.
Maybe it’s necessary to write a provocative title with a hazy definition of “lying” in order to get everyone’s attention and force a conversation. (In the same way it may be necessary to exaggerate global warming by 4x to get Jane Q Public to care). But it is certainly not the platonic ideal of the epistemic culture we need to build.