I downvoted the above comment, because I think it is more critical than helpful in a way that mildly frustrates me (because Iâm not sure quite what you meant, or how to update my views of the post in response to your critique) and seems likely to frustrate the author (for similar reasons).
What is your goal in trying to make points about whether this information is âimportant to stay up-to-date aboutâ or worth being âsix paragraphsâ long?
Do you think this post shouldnât have been published? That it should have been shorter? That it would have been good to include more justification of the content before getting into detail about these definitions?
Raemon thought that it seems good for leaders to keep people updated on how they are conceptualizing things.
I argued that this doesnât seem true in all cases, pointing out that six paragraphs on whether to hyphenate âlongetermismâ isnât important to stay updated on, even when it comes from a leader.
---
For stuff like this, my ideal goal is something like âconverge on the truth.â
I usually settle for consolation prizes like âget more clarity about where & how I disagree with other folks in EAâ and/âor ânote my disagreements as they arise.â
⌠or how to update my views of the post in response to your critique
For what itâs worth, I suspect thereâs enough inferential distance between us on fundamental stuff such that I wouldnât expect either of us to be able to easily update while discussing topics on this level of abstraction.
âUpdate my views of the postâ probably wasnât the right phrase to useâbetter would be âupdate my views of whether the post is a good thing to have on the Forum in something like its current formâ.
In general, I have a strong inclination that people should post content on the Forum if it is related to effective altruism and might be valuable to read for even a small fraction of users. Iâm not concerned about too many posts being made (at least at the current level of activity).
I might be concerned if people seem to be putting more time/âeffort into posts than is warranted by the expected impact of those posts, but I have a high bar to drawing that conclusion; generally, Iâd trust the authorâs judgment of how valuable a thing is for them to publish over my own, especially if they are an expert writing about something on which I am a non-expert.
Even if the information in this post wasnât especially new (Iâm not sure which bits have and havenât been discussed elsewhere), I expect it to be helpful to EA-aligned people who find themselves trying to communicate about longtermism with people outside of EA, for some of the reasons Will outlined. I can imagine referring to it as I work on an edition of the EA Newsletter or prepare for an interview with a journalist.
--
Finally, on hyphenation:
a. There are at least two occasions in the last two months that I, personally, have had to decide how to spell âlongtermismâ in something written for a public audience. And while I am an unusual case...
b. âŚhyphenation matters! Movements look less professional when they canât decide how to express terms they often use in writing (hyphenation, capitalization, etc.) Something like this makes me say âhuh?â before I even start reading the article (written by a critic of a movement in that case, but the general point stands).
These are far from the most important paragraphs ever published on the Forum, but they do take a stand on a point with two reasonable sides and argue convincingly for one of them, in a way that could change how many readers refer to a common term.
I downvoted the above comment, because I think it is more critical than helpful in a way that mildly frustrates me (because Iâm not sure quite what you meant, or how to update my views of the post in response to your critique) and seems likely to frustrate the author (for similar reasons).
What is your goal in trying to make points about whether this information is âimportant to stay up-to-date aboutâ or worth being âsix paragraphsâ long?
Do you think this post shouldnât have been published? That it should have been shorter? That it would have been good to include more justification of the content before getting into detail about these definitions?
Raemon thought that it seems good for leaders to keep people updated on how they are conceptualizing things.
I argued that this doesnât seem true in all cases, pointing out that six paragraphs on whether to hyphenate âlongetermismâ isnât important to stay updated on, even when it comes from a leader.
---
For stuff like this, my ideal goal is something like âconverge on the truth.â
I usually settle for consolation prizes like âget more clarity about where & how I disagree with other folks in EAâ and/âor ânote my disagreements as they arise.â
For what itâs worth, I suspect thereâs enough inferential distance between us on fundamental stuff such that I wouldnât expect either of us to be able to easily update while discussing topics on this level of abstraction.
âUpdate my views of the postâ probably wasnât the right phrase to useâbetter would be âupdate my views of whether the post is a good thing to have on the Forum in something like its current formâ.
In general, I have a strong inclination that people should post content on the Forum if it is related to effective altruism and might be valuable to read for even a small fraction of users. Iâm not concerned about too many posts being made (at least at the current level of activity).
I might be concerned if people seem to be putting more time/âeffort into posts than is warranted by the expected impact of those posts, but I have a high bar to drawing that conclusion; generally, Iâd trust the authorâs judgment of how valuable a thing is for them to publish over my own, especially if they are an expert writing about something on which I am a non-expert.
Even if the information in this post wasnât especially new (Iâm not sure which bits have and havenât been discussed elsewhere), I expect it to be helpful to EA-aligned people who find themselves trying to communicate about longtermism with people outside of EA, for some of the reasons Will outlined. I can imagine referring to it as I work on an edition of the EA Newsletter or prepare for an interview with a journalist.
--
Finally, on hyphenation:
a. There are at least two occasions in the last two months that I, personally, have had to decide how to spell âlongtermismâ in something written for a public audience. And while I am an unusual case...
b. âŚhyphenation matters! Movements look less professional when they canât decide how to express terms they often use in writing (hyphenation, capitalization, etc.) Something like this makes me say âhuh?â before I even start reading the article (written by a critic of a movement in that case, but the general point stands).
These are far from the most important paragraphs ever published on the Forum, but they do take a stand on a point with two reasonable sides and argue convincingly for one of them, in a way that could change how many readers refer to a common term.