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majority of 80k’s key positions (i.e. those listed in the key ideas series, career guide, list of problems) haven’t been retracted in this way.
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.