I’m unsure what part of my comment you are replying to. I’m happy to own up to valuing “being right over optics/politics”. I’m OK if you became aggressive or even hostile, through making good inferences about me.
However, many of the things you said are confusing to me. I don’t know how the blog post on “PR”/”reputation” is relevant. Also, I agree with Matt Yglesias (I’m in touch with him!).
Importantly, I think it would be good for you to be aware of how your writing in your comment might present to some people.
Your comment begins with “my intuitions differ some here…” which implies I share these the views you are opposing below your comment. This seems confirmed throughout, e.g. “My thinking used to be a lot closer to yours and the thinking of the quoted Slack participants”.
If I tried to reply, I think I would have be obligated to refute or deal with the the associations you imply for me, which include “ally with a semi-fascist”, “violating American morality”, “little discussion of deontological safeguards”, “nip [my] own immoral behavior in the bud”.
I don’t think the following idea is in the article, much less my comment: “You don’t just replace “our great virtue is being right” with “our focus is being right” because it sounds better.”
I don’t think you intended this, but I think some people would find this strange and somewhat offensive.
I actually found your reply interesting and filled with content. I think you have interesting opinions to share.
My comment was a sloppy attempt at simultaneously replying to (a) attitudes I’ve personally observed in EA, (b) the PR Slack channel as described in the article, and (c) your comment. I apologize if I misunderstood your comment or mischaracterized your position.
My reply was meant as a vague gesture at how I would like EA leadership to change relative to what came through in the New Yorker article. I wouldn’t read too much into what I wrote. It’s tricky to make a directional recommendation, because there’s always the possibility that the reader has already made the update you want them to make, and your directional recommendation causes them to over-update.
I’m unsure what part of my comment you are replying to. I’m happy to own up to valuing “being right over optics/politics”. I’m OK if you became aggressive or even hostile, through making good inferences about me.
However, many of the things you said are confusing to me. I don’t know how the blog post on “PR”/”reputation” is relevant. Also, I agree with Matt Yglesias (I’m in touch with him!).
Importantly, I think it would be good for you to be aware of how your writing in your comment might present to some people.
Your comment begins with “my intuitions differ some here…” which implies I share these the views you are opposing below your comment. This seems confirmed throughout, e.g. “My thinking used to be a lot closer to yours and the thinking of the quoted Slack participants”.
If I tried to reply, I think I would have be obligated to refute or deal with the the associations you imply for me, which include “ally with a semi-fascist”, “violating American morality”, “little discussion of deontological safeguards”, “nip [my] own immoral behavior in the bud”.
I don’t think the following idea is in the article, much less my comment: “You don’t just replace “our great virtue is being right” with “our focus is being right” because it sounds better.”
I don’t think you intended this, but I think some people would find this strange and somewhat offensive.
I actually found your reply interesting and filled with content. I think you have interesting opinions to share.
My comment was a sloppy attempt at simultaneously replying to (a) attitudes I’ve personally observed in EA, (b) the PR Slack channel as described in the article, and (c) your comment. I apologize if I misunderstood your comment or mischaracterized your position.
My reply was meant as a vague gesture at how I would like EA leadership to change relative to what came through in the New Yorker article. I wouldn’t read too much into what I wrote. It’s tricky to make a directional recommendation, because there’s always the possibility that the reader has already made the update you want them to make, and your directional recommendation causes them to over-update.