Instead of writing this like some kind of expose, it seems you could get the same results by emailing the 80K team, noting the political sensitivity of the topic, and suggesting that they provide some additional disclaimers about the nature of the recommendation.
I don’t agree with the_jaded_one’s conclusions or think his post is particularly well-thought-out, but I don’t think raising the bar on criticism like this is very productive if you care about getting good criticism. (If you think the_jaded_one’s criticism is bad criticism, then I think it makes sense to just argue for that rather than saying that they should have made it privately.)
My reasons are very similar to Benjamin Hoffman’s reasons here.
I don’t agree with the_jaded_one’s conclusions or think his post is particularly well-thought-out, but I don’t think raising the bar on criticism like this is very productive if you care about getting good criticism. (If you think the_jaded_one’s criticism is bad criticism, then I think it makes sense to just argue for that rather than saying that they should have made it privately.)
I agree with this and wasn’t trying to say something to the contrary. What I was trying to do is note that the post makes a relatively minor issue into an expose on EA and on 80K. I think this is unnecessary and unwarranted by the issue. What is was trying to do is note one way of handling the issue if your goal is merely to gain more information or see that a problem gets fixed.
I think public criticism is fine. I think a good, but not required, practice is to show the criticism to the organization ahead of publishing it so that they can correct factual inaccuracies. I think that would have improved the criticism substantially in this case.
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.
I don’t agree with the_jaded_one’s conclusions or think his post is particularly well-thought-out, but I don’t think raising the bar on criticism like this is very productive if you care about getting good criticism. (If you think the_jaded_one’s criticism is bad criticism, then I think it makes sense to just argue for that rather than saying that they should have made it privately.)
My reasons are very similar to Benjamin Hoffman’s reasons here.
I agree with this and wasn’t trying to say something to the contrary. What I was trying to do is note that the post makes a relatively minor issue into an expose on EA and on 80K. I think this is unnecessary and unwarranted by the issue. What is was trying to do is note one way of handling the issue if your goal is merely to gain more information or see that a problem gets fixed.
I think public criticism is fine. I think a good, but not required, practice is to show the criticism to the organization ahead of publishing it so that they can correct factual inaccuracies. I think that would have improved the criticism substantially in this case.
Thanks for clarifying; your position seems reasonable to me.
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.