So I can empathise feeling frustrated about negative media perception of EA, especially if there’s a strong Gell-Mann Amnesia effect involved. But these are surely rhetorical questions, whose answers are fairly obvious?
Why does it matter?
How EA is perceived by others, including institutions which have societal influence and soft power like the NYT, is of interest. Even if this particular piece doesn’t matter to you, it might matter to others. The Forum is meant to be a place to appeal very widely to those in the EA movement.
Who cares?
You might not, but Richard cared enough to read, comment on, and share the article here. I presume some others will care about the article directly, or general trend of increasing scrutiny that EA has been under.
Do we have a mental model of who bothers reading fancy pants journalists, let alone NYT comments, and if we care about their opinions?
I’m sure data about the demographics of NYT readers, especially those online, shouldn’t be too hard to find (though I didn’t for this comment). I suspect that those demographics might overlap a fair way with those involved in EA, though not totally.
What’s the value prop of casual readers of the NYT having a more accurate impression of EA?
I mean, this seems fairly obvious? A more accurate impression leads to more people being aware of EA and feeling positive about our cause areas, then they’re more likely to find the courses of action that the movement recommends and make the world better.
As a general point, I do empathise with the sense of frustration I feel in your comment. But “optics” do matter, and it’s important to pay attention to what arguments for and against EA are getting major public traction—and if there are easy areas that we can set the record straight against intentionala misrepresentations or obvious mistakes, that’s surely to our benefit.
So I can empathise feeling frustrated about negative media perception of EA, especially if there’s a strong Gell-Mann Amnesia effect involved. But these are surely rhetorical questions, whose answers are fairly obvious?
How EA is perceived by others, including institutions which have societal influence and soft power like the NYT, is of interest. Even if this particular piece doesn’t matter to you, it might matter to others. The Forum is meant to be a place to appeal very widely to those in the EA movement.
You might not, but Richard cared enough to read, comment on, and share the article here. I presume some others will care about the article directly, or general trend of increasing scrutiny that EA has been under.
I’m sure data about the demographics of NYT readers, especially those online, shouldn’t be too hard to find (though I didn’t for this comment). I suspect that those demographics might overlap a fair way with those involved in EA, though not totally.
I mean, this seems fairly obvious? A more accurate impression leads to more people being aware of EA and feeling positive about our cause areas, then they’re more likely to find the courses of action that the movement recommends and make the world better.
As a general point, I do empathise with the sense of frustration I feel in your comment. But “optics” do matter, and it’s important to pay attention to what arguments for and against EA are getting major public traction—and if there are easy areas that we can set the record straight against intentionala misrepresentations or obvious mistakes, that’s surely to our benefit.