Many individual sections of this post were well-done, but itās hard to tell what a given reader, whether or not they work for an EA organization, might draw from it re: activities they could pursue or ways in which they could change their strategy.
Itās also the case that nearly every strategy mentioned here can backfire, from media engagement to learning into the movementās natural āelitismā. Splitting this post into multiple sub-posts might have created a more natural structure for addressing the pros and cons of your different suggestions.
Iām also left with a nagging feeling that EAās lack of consistent viral success may be more ārandomā than anything else. There are plenty of storytellers in the movement with a strong grasp for when emotion can make a point more effective (Julia Wise, Jeff Kaufman, and Rob Mather come to mind). Most of the EA presentations Iāve seen done for a large audience have paid attention to framing in a natural, commonsense way. I donāt think weāve made many large missteps in public relations over the yearsābut I do think that the movement is small and that most small movements never get much attention (unless they nominate a presidential candidate or are held responsible for a catastrophic act of violence). Iām not sure a change in strategy will make much of a difference, but as someone whose work includes trying to market EA, Iād be happy to be proven wrong.
Are there elements of EA marketing you think have systematically been carried out in a way that lends itself to clear correction/āimprovement? Cases where you can look at an interview held with an EA figure and say: āYou should have paid more attention to hidden motives by doing Xā?
One consistent frame Iāve seen with EAs is a much higher emphasis on āHow can I frame this to avoid looking bad to as many people as possible?ā rather than āHow can I frame this to look good and interesting to as many people as possible?ā
Something the ācold hard truth about the icebucket challengeā did (correctly I think), is be willing to be controversial and polarizing deliberately. This is something that in general EAs seem to avoid, and thereās a general sense that these sorts of marketing framings are the ādark artsā that one should not touch.
On one hand, I see the argument for how framing the facts in the most positive light is obviously bad for an epistemic culture, and could hurt EAās reputation; on the other hand, I think EA is so allergic to this that it hurts it. I do think this is a risk aversion bias when it comes to both public perception and epistemic climate, and that EA is irrationally too far towards being cautious.
Another frequent mistake I see along this same vein (although less rare with the higher status people in the movement) is to confuse epistemic and emotional confidence. People often think that if theyāre unsure about an opinion, they need to appear unsure of themselves when stating an opinion.
The problem with this in the context of the above post is that appearing unsure of yourself signals low status. The antidote to this is to detach your sure-o-meter from your feeling of confidence, and be able to verbally state your confidence levels without being unsure of yourself. If you do this currently in the EA community, there can be a stigma about epistemic overconfidence thatās difficult to overcome, even though this is the correct way to maximize both epistemic modesty and outside perception.
So to sum my suggestions up for concrete ways that people in organizations could start taking status effects more into account:
Shift more from āhow can frame the truth to avoid looking bad?ā to āHow can I frame the truth to look good?ā
Work to detach your emotional and your epistemic confidence, especially in public settings.
The problem with this in the context of the above post is that appearing unsure of yourself signals low status. The antidote to this is to detach your sure-o-meter from your feeling of confidence, and be able to verbally state your confidence levels without being unsure of yourself.
This is one of the most interesting points Iāve seen on the Forum in a long while. It perfectly captures the distinction I feel between certain people who I consider excellent speakers in the EA movement and people who donāt give me that feeling. At first, I thought this was something like high charisma vs. low charisma, but that wasnāt quite right; you donāt need to be charismatic and charming to speak with confidence about your uncertainty.
Relatedly, there are the concepts of āuncertaintyā and āinsecurityā. I think thereās a risk that uncertainty as perceived, and perhaps even experienced, as insecurity. Interestingly, both concepts are translated into one and the same word in Dutch! (āonzekerheidā)
However, I think stating epistemic uncertainty in a very precise and confident way (e.g. āI believe X, and I am 60% certain my hypothesis is correctā) can show meta-confidence and strong epistemics. I would rather learn to be convince while still communicating uncertainties, than learning to hide my epistemic uncertainty.
Also, experts in any domain face this challenge, and useful lessons could be drawn from literature on it, such as this paper (I only read the abstract, it seems useful).
I agree with your feedback that discussing the different suggestions of how to implement the status-increasing elements to specific marketing strategies in greater detail would have made the post more practical.
As for your thoughts on whether EA marketing strategies need improvementāI think EAās lack of consistent viral success is not so random, I think itās at least partly the result of abstaining from using some of the marketing strategies that have been considered belonging more to the ādark artsā category Halffull mentions. I agree with Halffull here that perhaps EA is being too cautious when trying to not appear negative, so that it might miss out on some good opportunities to appear positive, e.g. via mass media.
The caution of using mass media, for example, seems to stem from EAās experience where the idea of Earning to Give became simplified and distorted after several articles (e.g. in Washington Post and DailyMail) were written about it. Iām not sure we should draw a conclusion of abstaining from a highly influential channel after one or few bad experience(s). Perhaps mass media was not the perfect channel for spreading the idea of Earning to Give, but it doesnāt mean it applies to all EA ideas alike. Secondly, even though I donāt think we should be spreading inaccurate ideas of EA, I do wonder what the impact of Earning to Give going to mass media really wasāperhaps it sparked interest in people who would have otherwise not heard of Effective Altruism. Perhaps this interest led them to 80,000 hours of GiveWell, which gave them a more precise overview of the idea.
Many individual sections of this post were well-done, but itās hard to tell what a given reader, whether or not they work for an EA organization, might draw from it re: activities they could pursue or ways in which they could change their strategy.
Itās also the case that nearly every strategy mentioned here can backfire, from media engagement to learning into the movementās natural āelitismā. Splitting this post into multiple sub-posts might have created a more natural structure for addressing the pros and cons of your different suggestions.
Iām also left with a nagging feeling that EAās lack of consistent viral success may be more ārandomā than anything else. There are plenty of storytellers in the movement with a strong grasp for when emotion can make a point more effective (Julia Wise, Jeff Kaufman, and Rob Mather come to mind). Most of the EA presentations Iāve seen done for a large audience have paid attention to framing in a natural, commonsense way. I donāt think weāve made many large missteps in public relations over the yearsābut I do think that the movement is small and that most small movements never get much attention (unless they nominate a presidential candidate or are held responsible for a catastrophic act of violence). Iām not sure a change in strategy will make much of a difference, but as someone whose work includes trying to market EA, Iād be happy to be proven wrong.
Are there elements of EA marketing you think have systematically been carried out in a way that lends itself to clear correction/āimprovement? Cases where you can look at an interview held with an EA figure and say: āYou should have paid more attention to hidden motives by doing Xā?
One consistent frame Iāve seen with EAs is a much higher emphasis on āHow can I frame this to avoid looking bad to as many people as possible?ā rather than āHow can I frame this to look good and interesting to as many people as possible?ā
Something the ācold hard truth about the icebucket challengeā did (correctly I think), is be willing to be controversial and polarizing deliberately. This is something that in general EAs seem to avoid, and thereās a general sense that these sorts of marketing framings are the ādark artsā that one should not touch.
On one hand, I see the argument for how framing the facts in the most positive light is obviously bad for an epistemic culture, and could hurt EAās reputation; on the other hand, I think EA is so allergic to this that it hurts it. I do think this is a risk aversion bias when it comes to both public perception and epistemic climate, and that EA is irrationally too far towards being cautious.
Another frequent mistake I see along this same vein (although less rare with the higher status people in the movement) is to confuse epistemic and emotional confidence. People often think that if theyāre unsure about an opinion, they need to appear unsure of themselves when stating an opinion.
The problem with this in the context of the above post is that appearing unsure of yourself signals low status. The antidote to this is to detach your sure-o-meter from your feeling of confidence, and be able to verbally state your confidence levels without being unsure of yourself. If you do this currently in the EA community, there can be a stigma about epistemic overconfidence thatās difficult to overcome, even though this is the correct way to maximize both epistemic modesty and outside perception.
So to sum my suggestions up for concrete ways that people in organizations could start taking status effects more into account:
Shift more from āhow can frame the truth to avoid looking bad?ā to āHow can I frame the truth to look good?ā
Work to detach your emotional and your epistemic confidence, especially in public settings.
This is one of the most interesting points Iāve seen on the Forum in a long while. It perfectly captures the distinction I feel between certain people who I consider excellent speakers in the EA movement and people who donāt give me that feeling. At first, I thought this was something like high charisma vs. low charisma, but that wasnāt quite right; you donāt need to be charismatic and charming to speak with confidence about your uncertainty.
Relatedly, there are the concepts of āuncertaintyā and āinsecurityā. I think thereās a risk that uncertainty as perceived, and perhaps even experienced, as insecurity. Interestingly, both concepts are translated into one and the same word in Dutch! (āonzekerheidā)
However, I think stating epistemic uncertainty in a very precise and confident way (e.g. āI believe X, and I am 60% certain my hypothesis is correctā) can show meta-confidence and strong epistemics. I would rather learn to be convince while still communicating uncertainties, than learning to hide my epistemic uncertainty.
Also, experts in any domain face this challenge, and useful lessons could be drawn from literature on it, such as this paper (I only read the abstract, it seems useful).
I agree with your feedback that discussing the different suggestions of how to implement the status-increasing elements to specific marketing strategies in greater detail would have made the post more practical.
As for your thoughts on whether EA marketing strategies need improvementāI think EAās lack of consistent viral success is not so random, I think itās at least partly the result of abstaining from using some of the marketing strategies that have been considered belonging more to the ādark artsā category Halffull mentions. I agree with Halffull here that perhaps EA is being too cautious when trying to not appear negative, so that it might miss out on some good opportunities to appear positive, e.g. via mass media.
The caution of using mass media, for example, seems to stem from EAās experience where the idea of Earning to Give became simplified and distorted after several articles (e.g. in Washington Post and DailyMail) were written about it. Iām not sure we should draw a conclusion of abstaining from a highly influential channel after one or few bad experience(s). Perhaps mass media was not the perfect channel for spreading the idea of Earning to Give, but it doesnāt mean it applies to all EA ideas alike. Secondly, even though I donāt think we should be spreading inaccurate ideas of EA, I do wonder what the impact of Earning to Give going to mass media really wasāperhaps it sparked interest in people who would have otherwise not heard of Effective Altruism. Perhaps this interest led them to 80,000 hours of GiveWell, which gave them a more precise overview of the idea.