The original post is partly based on a misconception about how we produced the list and our motivations. That’s the kind of thing that could have been clarified if the author contacted us before publishing (or indeed, after publishing).
based on a misconception about how we produced the list and our motivations.
I would disagree; to me it seems irrelevant whether 80,000 hours is “just syndicating content”, or whether your organisation has a “direct view or goal”.
It’s on your website, as a recommendation. If it’s a bad recommendation, it’s your problem.
Perhaps, but the article is peculiar because it’s directed at 80,000 Hours rather than the ultimate source of the advice—when you just as easily could have addressed it to OpenPhil. It would be as though you had a problem with AMF and criticised 80,000 Hours over it (wondering what specifics could have caused us to recommend it), when you could just as easily direct it as GiveWell.
This leads you to speculation like “maybe [80,000 Hours] likes left-wing social justice causes”. Had you reached out you wouldn’t have had to speculate, and I could have told you right away that the list was designed to a follow a process that minimised the influence of my personal opinions. Had it been based on my personal views rather than a survey of experts and institutions, it probably wouldn’t have included the Criminal Justice Reform category.
Anyway, I do think if you’re writing a lengthy piece about a person or a group speaking with them to ask clarificatory questions is wise—it can save you from wasting time going down rabbit holes.
when you just as easily could have addressed it to OpenPhil
This is true—and I would say that a lot of the same questions could be directed to OpenPhil.
process that minimised the influence of my personal opinions
But there should be some ultimate sanity checking on that process; if some process ends up recommending something that isn’t really a good recommendation, then is it a good process?
it can save you from wasting time going down rabbit holes.
Yes, that’s true, and I would consider it a pro which I consider to be outweighed by other factors.
The original post is partly based on a misconception about how we produced the list and our motivations. That’s the kind of thing that could have been clarified if the author contacted us before publishing (or indeed, after publishing).
I would disagree; to me it seems irrelevant whether 80,000 hours is “just syndicating content”, or whether your organisation has a “direct view or goal”.
It’s on your website, as a recommendation. If it’s a bad recommendation, it’s your problem.
Perhaps, but the article is peculiar because it’s directed at 80,000 Hours rather than the ultimate source of the advice—when you just as easily could have addressed it to OpenPhil. It would be as though you had a problem with AMF and criticised 80,000 Hours over it (wondering what specifics could have caused us to recommend it), when you could just as easily direct it as GiveWell.
This leads you to speculation like “maybe [80,000 Hours] likes left-wing social justice causes”. Had you reached out you wouldn’t have had to speculate, and I could have told you right away that the list was designed to a follow a process that minimised the influence of my personal opinions. Had it been based on my personal views rather than a survey of experts and institutions, it probably wouldn’t have included the Criminal Justice Reform category.
Anyway, I do think if you’re writing a lengthy piece about a person or a group speaking with them to ask clarificatory questions is wise—it can save you from wasting time going down rabbit holes.
This is true—and I would say that a lot of the same questions could be directed to OpenPhil.
But there should be some ultimate sanity checking on that process; if some process ends up recommending something that isn’t really a good recommendation, then is it a good process?
Yes, that’s true, and I would consider it a pro which I consider to be outweighed by other factors.