I agree that people should be allowed to give criticism without talking to the critiqued organizations first. It does usually improve informativeness and persuasiveness, but if we required every critique to be of extremely high journalistic quality then we would never get any criticism done, so we have a lower standard.
By this point, though, the thread has created enough discussion that at least some of OpenPhil are probably reading it. Still you’re effectively talking about them as though they’re not in the room, even though they are. The fix is to email them a link, and to try to give arguments that you think they would appreciate as input for how they could improve their activities.
The fix is to email them a link, and to try to give arguments that you think they would appreciate as input for how they could improve their activities.
Those arguments are in the post.
I am writing under a pseudonym so I don’t have an easy way of emailing them without it going to their spam folder. I have sent an email pointing them to the post, though.
Can you elaborate?
I agree that people should be allowed to give criticism without talking to the critiqued organizations first. It does usually improve informativeness and persuasiveness, but if we required every critique to be of extremely high journalistic quality then we would never get any criticism done, so we have a lower standard.
By this point, though, the thread has created enough discussion that at least some of OpenPhil are probably reading it. Still you’re effectively talking about them as though they’re not in the room, even though they are. The fix is to email them a link, and to try to give arguments that you think they would appreciate as input for how they could improve their activities.
...
Those arguments are in the post.
I am writing under a pseudonym so I don’t have an easy way of emailing them without it going to their spam folder. I have sent an email pointing them to the post, though.