I thought I was reasonably clear in my post but I will try again. As far as I understand .your argument is that the items in the tiers are heuristics people might use to determine how to make decisions, and the “tiers” represent how useful/trustworthy they are at doing that (with stuff in lower tiers like “folk wisdom” being not that useful and stuff in higher tiers like RCTs being more useful)
But I don’t really see “literacy” or “math” broadly construed as methods to reach any specific decision, they’re simply things I might need to understand actual arguments (and for that matter I am convinced that people can use good heuristics whilst being functionally illiterate or innumerate). The only real reason I can think of for putting them at the top is “many people argue against trusting (F-tier) folk wisdom is bad, there are some good arguments about not overindexing on (B-tier) RCTs, there are few decent arguments on principle against (S-tier) reading or adding up, despite the fact that literacy helps genocidal grudges as well as scientific knowledge to spread. I agree with this, but I don’t think it illustrates very much that can be used to help me make better decisions as an individual. Because what really matters if I’m using my literacy to help me make a decision is what I read and what things I read I trust; much more than whether I can trust I’ve parsed it correctly. Likewise I think what thought experiments I’m influenced by is more important than the idea that thought experiments are (possibly) less trustworthy than at helping me make decisions than a full blown philosophical framework or more trustworthy than folk wisdown.
FWIW I think the infographic was fine and would suggest reinstating it (I don’t think the argument is clearer without it, and it’s certainly harder for people to suggest methods you might have missed if you don’t show methods you included!)
Your linkpost also strips most of the key parts from the article, which I suspect some of the downvoters missed
I think as an individual reading and mathematical modeling is more conducive to learning true things about the world more than most other things on the list. Certainly I read much more often than I conduct RCTs! Even working scientists have reading the literature as a major component of their overall process.
I also believe this is true for civilization overall. If we imagine in an alternative civilization that is incapable of RCTs but can learn things from direct observation, natural experiments, engineering, etc, I expect substantial progress is still possible. However, if all information can only be relayed via the oral tradition, I think it’d be very hard to build up a substantial civilization. There’s a similar argument for math as well, though less so.
Likewise I think what thought experiments I’m influenced by is more important than the idea that thought experiments are (possibly) less trustworthy than at helping me make decisions than a full blown philosophical framework or more trustworthy than folk wisdown.
Sure, the article discusses this in some detail. Context and discernment definitely matters. I could’ve definitely spent more effort on it, but I was worried it was already too long, and am also unsure if I could provide anything novel that’s relevant to specific people’s situations anyway.
FWIW I think the infographic was fine and would suggest reinstating it (I don’t think the argument is clearer without it, and it’s certainly harder for people to suggest methods you might have missed if you don’t show methods you included!)
I think the infographic probably makes it more likely for people to downvote the post without reading it.
Your linkpost also strips most of the key parts from the article, which I suspect some of the downvoters missed
Yeah the linkpost is just an introduction + explanation of why the post is relevant to EA Forum + link. I strongly suspect, based on substack analytics (which admittedly might be inaccurate) most people who downvoted the post didn’t read or even skim the post. I frankly find this extremely [1]rude.
(Less than 1% of my substack’s views came from the EA Forum, so pretty much every single one of the clickers have to have downvoted; I think it’s much more likely that people who didn’t read the post downvoted. I personally only downvote posts I’ve read, or at least skimmed carefully enough that I’m confident I’d downvote upon a closer read. I can’t imagine having the arrogance to do otherwise.)
I thought I was reasonably clear in my post but I will try again. As far as I understand .your argument is that the items in the tiers are heuristics people might use to determine how to make decisions, and the “tiers” represent how useful/trustworthy they are at doing that (with stuff in lower tiers like “folk wisdom” being not that useful and stuff in higher tiers like RCTs being more useful)
But I don’t really see “literacy” or “math” broadly construed as methods to reach any specific decision, they’re simply things I might need to understand actual arguments (and for that matter I am convinced that people can use good heuristics whilst being functionally illiterate or innumerate). The only real reason I can think of for putting them at the top is “many people argue against trusting (F-tier) folk wisdom is bad, there are some good arguments about not overindexing on (B-tier) RCTs, there are few decent arguments on principle against (S-tier) reading or adding up, despite the fact that literacy helps genocidal grudges as well as scientific knowledge to spread. I agree with this, but I don’t think it illustrates very much that can be used to help me make better decisions as an individual. Because what really matters if I’m using my literacy to help me make a decision is what I read and what things I read I trust; much more than whether I can trust I’ve parsed it correctly. Likewise I think what thought experiments I’m influenced by is more important than the idea that thought experiments are (possibly) less trustworthy than at helping me make decisions than a full blown philosophical framework or more trustworthy than folk wisdown.
FWIW I think the infographic was fine and would suggest reinstating it (I don’t think the argument is clearer without it, and it’s certainly harder for people to suggest methods you might have missed if you don’t show methods you included!)
Your linkpost also strips most of the key parts from the article, which I suspect some of the downvoters missed
I think as an individual reading and mathematical modeling is more conducive to learning true things about the world more than most other things on the list. Certainly I read much more often than I conduct RCTs! Even working scientists have reading the literature as a major component of their overall process.
I also believe this is true for civilization overall. If we imagine in an alternative civilization that is incapable of RCTs but can learn things from direct observation, natural experiments, engineering, etc, I expect substantial progress is still possible. However, if all information can only be relayed via the oral tradition, I think it’d be very hard to build up a substantial civilization. There’s a similar argument for math as well, though less so.
Sure, the article discusses this in some detail. Context and discernment definitely matters. I could’ve definitely spent more effort on it, but I was worried it was already too long, and am also unsure if I could provide anything novel that’s relevant to specific people’s situations anyway.
I think the infographic probably makes it more likely for people to downvote the post without reading it.
Yeah the linkpost is just an introduction + explanation of why the post is relevant to EA Forum + link. I strongly suspect, based on substack analytics (which admittedly might be inaccurate) most people who downvoted the post didn’t read or even skim the post. I frankly find this extremely [1]rude.
(Less than 1% of my substack’s views came from the EA Forum, so pretty much every single one of the clickers have to have downvoted; I think it’s much more likely that people who didn’t read the post downvoted. I personally only downvote posts I’ve read, or at least skimmed carefully enough that I’m confident I’d downvote upon a closer read. I can’t imagine having the arrogance to do otherwise.)