I think there is a disagreement that gets at the core of the issue.
IMO the concepts of “updating” and “outside view” are important enough and non-quantitative enough that if someone can’t use that jargon correctly after learning it, I’m very skeptical of their ability to contribute intellectually to EA.
The examples you mention are well chosen and get at the core of the issue, which is unnecessary in-group speak.
Updating: this basically means proportionately changing your opinions/worldview with new information.
It’s a neologism, and we’re bastardizing its formal use in Bayesian updating, where it is a term of art for creating a new statistical distribution.
So imagine you’re in France, and trying vibe with some 200 IQ woman who has training in stats. Spouting off a few of these words in a row might annoy or confuse her. They might turn up their high IQ gallic nose and walk away.
If you’re talking to someone 120 IQ dude in China who is really credulous, wants to get into EA, but doesn’t know these words and doesn’t have a background in stats, and they go home and look up what Bayesian updating means, they might think EAs are literally calculating the posterior for their beliefs, and then wonder what prior they are using. The next day, that dude is going to look really “dumb” because they spent 50x more effort than needed and will ask weird questions about how people are doing algebra in their heads.
Outside View: This is another neologism.
This time, it’s not really clear what this word means. This is a problem.
I’ve used it various times in different situations to mean different things. No one ever calls me out on this abuse. Maybe that’s because I speak fast, use big words, or know math stuff, or maybe I just use the word well, but it’s a luxury not everyone has.
Once again, that somewhat smug misuse of language could really annoy or disadvantage a new person to EA, even someone perfectly intelligent.
I think there is a disagreement that gets at the core of the issue.
The examples you mention are well chosen and get at the core of the issue, which is unnecessary in-group speak.
Updating: this basically means proportionately changing your opinions/worldview with new information.
It’s a neologism, and we’re bastardizing its formal use in Bayesian updating, where it is a term of art for creating a new statistical distribution.
So imagine you’re in France, and trying vibe with some 200 IQ woman who has training in stats. Spouting off a few of these words in a row might annoy or confuse her. They might turn up their high IQ gallic nose and walk away.
If you’re talking to someone 120 IQ dude in China who is really credulous, wants to get into EA, but doesn’t know these words and doesn’t have a background in stats, and they go home and look up what Bayesian updating means, they might think EAs are literally calculating the posterior for their beliefs, and then wonder what prior they are using. The next day, that dude is going to look really “dumb” because they spent 50x more effort than needed and will ask weird questions about how people are doing algebra in their heads.
Outside View: This is another neologism.
This time, it’s not really clear what this word means. This is a problem.
I’ve used it various times in different situations to mean different things. No one ever calls me out on this abuse. Maybe that’s because I speak fast, use big words, or know math stuff, or maybe I just use the word well, but it’s a luxury not everyone has.
Once again, that somewhat smug misuse of language could really annoy or disadvantage a new person to EA, even someone perfectly intelligent.