I think this post doesn’t explicitly mention some relevant context, especially for people newer to the community. While Ben mentions that he used to use this term, he doesn’t mention that he previously wrote a highly upvoted and engaged-with post that contributed to wider usage of the term.
I raise this because I’ve noticed that it is part of a larger pattern. The pattern goes something like this:
80,000 Hours introduce an idea or concept in a public, non-targeted (intended for mass consumption) and engaging (interesting to read / introducing easy-to-understand concepts) blog post such as:
Why and how to earn to give (note: I don’t think this is the only post here, or that 80K was the only actor to promote earning to give—others also promoted it during this period)
These posts sometimes end with a few very specific calls to action for a fairly small subset of the post’s readers, e.g. whether to pursue a particular (competitive) career, or becoming a researcher, grantmaker or entrepreneur.
Then, some time later, 80,000 hours publishes a post suggesting that the community is maybe going too far in one direction and that we should reverse course:
These posts sometimes mention that 80,000 Hours previously held this view but often don’t acknowledge the role that this prior communication played in contributing to the problem.
I think this points to some important questions that deserve more discussion, since communications have a strong hand to play in shaping community discourse.
I didn’t mean to give the impression I didn’t contribute to the use of the term ‘funding overhang’. I thought that was covered by the paragraph where I say that I used to use the term (plus would be obvious to forum readers interested in this article). I’ve now added link to the “is EA growing” post and a small edit.
(I think in the other three cases you list, earning to give, consulting and talent gaps, I was pretty explicit about how I contributed to the problem.)
I also agree there has been something in the direction of this general pattern, and I would like to get better at predicting the ways my posts will be misunderstood in advance, though I do find this hard.
I’d be curious if you think a strategy of, say, posting half as often (but trying to vet more ahead of time) would be better than posting more often, and then writing follow ups about common misunderstandings & questions that arise, in more of a dialogue.
I could say a bunch more about the specific examples mentioned. One quick observation is that I think earning to give was both the earliest and the most damaging example. ‘Funding overhang’ seems like a different class of problem (e.g. I don’t think people have taken the wrong career due to it) - I just wrote this post since I think the concept of ‘degree of funding constraint’ and ‘the bar’ are clearer, and wanted to get Forum readers using them more. The main points of the original post still stand (available funding has increased a lot, which has implications for priorities).
Edit: Maybe it’s also worth saying that the large majority of 80k’s key positions (i.e. those listed in the key ideas series, career guide, list of problems) haven’t been retracted in this way.
I strongly upvoted this comment not because I have strong feelings about it, but because I think it’s excellent as a comment: it makes one clear, novel point with good formatting, useful links and appropriate evidence. If there was still a “comment prize” I’d nominate this one.
I think this post doesn’t explicitly mention some relevant context, especially for people newer to the community. While Ben mentions that he used to use this term, he doesn’t mention that he previously wrote a highly upvoted and engaged-with post that contributed to wider usage of the term.
I raise this because I’ve noticed that it is part of a larger pattern. The pattern goes something like this:
80,000 Hours introduce an idea or concept in a public, non-targeted (intended for mass consumption) and engaging (interesting to read / introducing easy-to-understand concepts) blog post such as:
Why and how to earn to give (note: I don’t think this is the only post here, or that 80K was the only actor to promote earning to give—others also promoted it during this period)
Management consulting (for skill-building & earning to give) - Career review
Why you should focus more on talent gaps, not funding gaps − 80,000 Hours
Is effective altruism growing? An update on the stock of funding vs. people
These posts sometimes end with a few very specific calls to action for a fairly small subset of the post’s readers, e.g. whether to pursue a particular (competitive) career, or becoming a researcher, grantmaker or entrepreneur.
Then, some time later, 80,000 hours publishes a post suggesting that the community is maybe going too far in one direction and that we should reverse course:
80,000 Hours thinks that only a small proportion of people should earn to give long term
Before committing to management consulting, consider directly entering priority paths, policy, startups, and other options − 80,000 Hours
Think twice before talking about ‘talent gaps’ — clarifying nine misconceptions
Let’s stop saying ‘funding overhang’ - EA Forum
These posts sometimes mention that 80,000 Hours previously held this view but often don’t acknowledge the role that this prior communication played in contributing to the problem.
I think this points to some important questions that deserve more discussion, since communications have a strong hand to play in shaping community discourse.
Hey Vaidehi,
I didn’t mean to give the impression I didn’t contribute to the use of the term ‘funding overhang’. I thought that was covered by the paragraph where I say that I used to use the term (plus would be obvious to forum readers interested in this article). I’ve now added link to the “is EA growing” post and a small edit.
(I think in the other three cases you list, earning to give, consulting and talent gaps, I was pretty explicit about how I contributed to the problem.)
I also agree there has been something in the direction of this general pattern, and I would like to get better at predicting the ways my posts will be misunderstood in advance, though I do find this hard.
I’d be curious if you think a strategy of, say, posting half as often (but trying to vet more ahead of time) would be better than posting more often, and then writing follow ups about common misunderstandings & questions that arise, in more of a dialogue.
I could say a bunch more about the specific examples mentioned. One quick observation is that I think earning to give was both the earliest and the most damaging example. ‘Funding overhang’ seems like a different class of problem (e.g. I don’t think people have taken the wrong career due to it) - I just wrote this post since I think the concept of ‘degree of funding constraint’ and ‘the bar’ are clearer, and wanted to get Forum readers using them more. The main points of the original post still stand (available funding has increased a lot, which has implications for priorities).
Edit: Maybe it’s also worth saying that the large majority of 80k’s key positions (i.e. those listed in the key ideas series, career guide, list of problems) haven’t been retracted in this way.
I strongly upvoted this comment not because I have strong feelings about it, but because I think it’s excellent as a comment: it makes one clear, novel point with good formatting, useful links and appropriate evidence. If there was still a “comment prize” I’d nominate this one.
Thanks! A lot of credit goes to my friends for helping me hone the point and work on the framing.