Framing my proposal as âhiding criticismâ is perhaps unduly emotive here. I think that it makes sense to be careful and purposive about what types of content you broadcast to a wider audience which is unlikely to do further research or read particularly critically. I agree with Aaronâs comment further down the page where he says that the effect of Torresâs piece is to make people feel âickyâ about longtermism. Therefore to achieve the ends which I take as implicit in evelynciaraâs comment (counteract some of the effects of Torresâs article and produce a piece of work which could be referenced on wikipedia), I think it makes more sense to just aim to write a fairer piece about longtermism, than to draw more attention to Torresâs piece. Iâm all for criticism of longtermism and I think such an article would be incomplete without including some, I just donât think Torresâs piece offers usable criticism.
But if his text is so bad, why should anyone feel âickyâ about longtermism because of it? Although Iâm by far not stranger to longtermism (Iâm here!), Iâm really not too much into EA and Iâm not a phylosopher nor have I studied it ever, so my theoretical knowledge of the topic is limited, and when I read Torresâ texts it is clear to me that they donât really hold.
When Iâm interested in one topic for which Iâm not really qualified to know if what I read/âhear about it holds true or is one sided, I tend to search for criticisms about it to check. What Iâve read from Torres or linked by him about longtermism, actually make me think that it seems to be difficult to fairly criticise longtermism.
I think reading Torresâ texts may well turn people away if they donât really know much else about the topic, but âgetting more people to read the original [Torresâ paper]â after having read a good piece shouldnât be a problem.
And coming back to my starting question, if a person who has good information sources feel âickyâ about a topic because of a bad piece of information, maybe it is okay that he/âshe is not too involved in the topic, no?
Commenting from five months into the future, when this is topically relevant:
I disagree. I read Torresâ arguments as not merely flawed, but as attempts to link longtermism to the far right in US culture wars. In such environments people are inclined to be uncharitable, and to spread the word to others who will also be uncharitable. With enough bad press itâs possible to get a Common Knowledge effect, where even people who are inclined to be openminded are worried about being seen doing so. That could be bad for recruiting, funding, cooperative endeavors, & mental health.
Now, thereâs only so many overpoliticized social media bubbles capable of such a wide effect, and they donât find new targets every day. So the chances of EA becoming a political bogeyman are low, even if Torres is actively attempting this. But I think bringing up his specific insinuations to a new audience invites more of this risk than is worth it.
It is long time ago now, but I donât remember having the feeling that he linked longtermism to the far right in that text. I donât know about in other places.
Framing my proposal as âhiding criticismâ is perhaps unduly emotive here. I think that it makes sense to be careful and purposive about what types of content you broadcast to a wider audience which is unlikely to do further research or read particularly critically. I agree with Aaronâs comment further down the page where he says that the effect of Torresâs piece is to make people feel âickyâ about longtermism. Therefore to achieve the ends which I take as implicit in evelynciaraâs comment (counteract some of the effects of Torresâs article and produce a piece of work which could be referenced on wikipedia), I think it makes more sense to just aim to write a fairer piece about longtermism, than to draw more attention to Torresâs piece. Iâm all for criticism of longtermism and I think such an article would be incomplete without including some, I just donât think Torresâs piece offers usable criticism.
Makes sense, I agree with that sentiment.
But if his text is so bad, why should anyone feel âickyâ about longtermism because of it? Although Iâm by far not stranger to longtermism (Iâm here!), Iâm really not too much into EA and Iâm not a phylosopher nor have I studied it ever, so my theoretical knowledge of the topic is limited, and when I read Torresâ texts it is clear to me that they donât really hold.
When Iâm interested in one topic for which Iâm not really qualified to know if what I read/âhear about it holds true or is one sided, I tend to search for criticisms about it to check. What Iâve read from Torres or linked by him about longtermism, actually make me think that it seems to be difficult to fairly criticise longtermism.
I think reading Torresâ texts may well turn people away if they donât really know much else about the topic, but âgetting more people to read the original [Torresâ paper]â after having read a good piece shouldnât be a problem.
And coming back to my starting question, if a person who has good information sources feel âickyâ about a topic because of a bad piece of information, maybe it is okay that he/âshe is not too involved in the topic, no?
Commenting from five months into the future, when this is topically relevant:
I disagree. I read Torresâ arguments as not merely flawed, but as attempts to link longtermism to the far right in US culture wars. In such environments people are inclined to be uncharitable, and to spread the word to others who will also be uncharitable. With enough bad press itâs possible to get a Common Knowledge effect, where even people who are inclined to be openminded are worried about being seen doing so. That could be bad for recruiting, funding, cooperative endeavors, & mental health.
Now, thereâs only so many overpoliticized social media bubbles capable of such a wide effect, and they donât find new targets every day. So the chances of EA becoming a political bogeyman are low, even if Torres is actively attempting this. But I think bringing up his specific insinuations to a new audience invites more of this risk than is worth it.
It is long time ago now, but I donât remember having the feeling that he linked longtermism to the far right in that text. I donât know about in other places.