(Disclaimer: I work at Rethink Priorities, but I’m speaking only for myself.)
40% doesn’t seem low to me, even if it means “probably inaccurate”, since it could still have substantial impact on cost-effectiveness estimates and prioritization, if we use expected values. Maybe it would be better for the post to explain this (if it hasn’t; it’s been a while since I read it).
Generally, dismissing something just because it’s probably inaccurate will tend to lead to worse outcomes in the long run. Plenty of events or possibilities with less than 50% probability matter a lot, because of the stakes. Most of the net benefits of insurance are for low probability events (you’d be better off just saving money for likely events), EA also does hits-based-giving, many (but not all) EAs working on extinction risk think extinction is actually unlikely any time soon.
For non-EA audiences, maybe it’s better to explain this each time for low probability possibilities?
What do you think of every time a reader perceives that the author is posting research to show off as opposed to providing value to the reader or responding to the thesis, the post should be redrafted? This can assist in mitigating reputational loss risk and be especially relevant to innovative ideas. Explaining low-probability possibilities in addition to the unedited writing could be counterproductive in the effort of presenting well-readable research.
You have posted many reviews. I think it is good that you are confident being disagreeable. I think it is easy to keep a positive tone, and this can get rewarded in a way that distorts discourse.
But I find it hard to agree with you on your content, or even understand how you form the opinion for many of your reviews.
In this case, saying things like:
seeking to trick readers to join the excitement of the author or the organization about something which the entity itself evaluates as probably inaccurate
Similarly, the cortical oscillations section can be perceived as an exhibit of obscure literature rather than developing an answer to the thesis.
Seems to suggest a sort of malice that is hard to rationalize.
This can assist in mitigating reputational loss risk
What is causing risk of reputational loss and how does this relate to the post? Do you think there are defects that warrant this level of concern? This seems implausible to me.
Taking the idea in your comment seriously:
When you’re writing really complex essays with scientific and public audiences, there’s tension between comprehensiveness and conciseness. Maybe authors have to decide between being a body of work to build upon, versus succinctly trying to inform people.
It’s difficult to satisfy everyone, impossible really.
It’s also very costly to redraft posts.
I think if authors had to address disagreement at the level represented by reviews like yours, this would probably be really counterproductive, e.g. make the envelope of solutions tiny and reduce writing output.
For example, if a family foundation decisionmaker comes across this series and finds the research as a rational argument to advance the welfare of various taxa, they may invest into ventures with these objectives; if they perceive that the research is using literature to manipulate decisionmakers into such actions, the person may opt for investments with a lesser taxonomic breadth consideration. The former can require the entirety of the research perceived as useful by the reader, the latter can take place with one part suggesting that vice versa, the reader should be useful to the research. Of course, any decisionmaker can be motivated by either perception of writing, or understand cooperation/exchange. Thus, perhaps the reader’s ability to discuss the motivations of the writing is key. This can be a better solution than being very careful about selecting ideas with high probability of accuracy, both because of the efficiency of less editing, and engagement of decisionmakers. So, I can update my thinking on this matter.
To your point on comprehensiveness vs. conciseness (also as per above), I understand that redrafting can be counterproductive, so readers can either engage in a conversation or select parts useful to them.
Redrafting every time seems too demanding, you can’t please everyone, and sometimes the reader is wrong. Ideally, this should be handled before publication. If a reviewer before publication gets this impression, then sure, redrafting can make sense. I’m not sure there should be any formal commitment to redrafting.
(Disclaimer: I work at Rethink Priorities, but I’m speaking only for myself.)
40% doesn’t seem low to me, even if it means “probably inaccurate”, since it could still have substantial impact on cost-effectiveness estimates and prioritization, if we use expected values. Maybe it would be better for the post to explain this (if it hasn’t; it’s been a while since I read it).
Generally, dismissing something just because it’s probably inaccurate will tend to lead to worse outcomes in the long run. Plenty of events or possibilities with less than 50% probability matter a lot, because of the stakes. Most of the net benefits of insurance are for low probability events (you’d be better off just saving money for likely events), EA also does hits-based-giving, many (but not all) EAs working on extinction risk think extinction is actually unlikely any time soon.
For non-EA audiences, maybe it’s better to explain this each time for low probability possibilities?
What do you think of every time a reader perceives that the author is posting research to show off as opposed to providing value to the reader or responding to the thesis, the post should be redrafted? This can assist in mitigating reputational loss risk and be especially relevant to innovative ideas. Explaining low-probability possibilities in addition to the unedited writing could be counterproductive in the effort of presenting well-readable research.
You have posted many reviews. I think it is good that you are confident being disagreeable. I think it is easy to keep a positive tone, and this can get rewarded in a way that distorts discourse.
But I find it hard to agree with you on your content, or even understand how you form the opinion for many of your reviews.
In this case, saying things like:
Seems to suggest a sort of malice that is hard to rationalize.
What is causing risk of reputational loss and how does this relate to the post? Do you think there are defects that warrant this level of concern? This seems implausible to me.
Taking the idea in your comment seriously:
When you’re writing really complex essays with scientific and public audiences, there’s tension between comprehensiveness and conciseness. Maybe authors have to decide between being a body of work to build upon, versus succinctly trying to inform people.
It’s difficult to satisfy everyone, impossible really.
It’s also very costly to redraft posts.
I think if authors had to address disagreement at the level represented by reviews like yours, this would probably be really counterproductive, e.g. make the envelope of solutions tiny and reduce writing output.
For example, if a family foundation decisionmaker comes across this series and finds the research as a rational argument to advance the welfare of various taxa, they may invest into ventures with these objectives; if they perceive that the research is using literature to manipulate decisionmakers into such actions, the person may opt for investments with a lesser taxonomic breadth consideration. The former can require the entirety of the research perceived as useful by the reader, the latter can take place with one part suggesting that vice versa, the reader should be useful to the research. Of course, any decisionmaker can be motivated by either perception of writing, or understand cooperation/exchange. Thus, perhaps the reader’s ability to discuss the motivations of the writing is key. This can be a better solution than being very careful about selecting ideas with high probability of accuracy, both because of the efficiency of less editing, and engagement of decisionmakers. So, I can update my thinking on this matter.
To your point on comprehensiveness vs. conciseness (also as per above), I understand that redrafting can be counterproductive, so readers can either engage in a conversation or select parts useful to them.
Redrafting every time seems too demanding, you can’t please everyone, and sometimes the reader is wrong. Ideally, this should be handled before publication. If a reviewer before publication gets this impression, then sure, redrafting can make sense. I’m not sure there should be any formal commitment to redrafting.