Two reasons these articles get written and become popular are:
They make the author look virtuous (e.g. modest, kind, reliable).
The arguments flatter a large share of readers.
It says that there are non-rational reasons why these articles gets written, and implies that is a reason to adjust the probability that the content of those articles are true downwards.
Now ad hominem-arguments do have a place in debating, although they should be used cautiously. I want to emphasize, though, that similar ad hominem-arguments can also be made against those that write the latter sort of posts. E.g., one might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else, etc.
Now given the demographic set-up of the EA movement, it isn’t obvious to me that the latter kind of ad hominem-argument is less plausible than the former. The situation seems to me to be quite symmetric.
But I also want to caution against over-use of ad hominem-arguments, and not only in public, but also when you’re thinking about this yourself. It is very easy to invent a straw man caricature of your opponent—“they only have that view because (insert self-interested motivation)”. This is a good example of that, from the “elitist” post:
This all said, the accusation of elitism, even if it’s accurate, can feel hurtful. Nevertheless there is an important thought experiment to run: In the hypothetical world where elitism is in fact the best strategy for saving and improving the most lives (even after accounting for reputational risk), how many happy lives am I willing to sacrifice in order to not be accused of elitism?
This implies that those who oppose elitism do so because of their self-interest in not being hurt by accusations of elitism. I defintely don’t believe that is universally true. Neither do I believe that all of those who advocate that EA should try to focus on recruiting elite members do so because they want to feel like they’re part of an elite group. Instead, I believe that both groups have good reasons for their views, and that we should try to engage with them. (This is not to say that we don’t fall prey to biases; we all do.) This debate needs more steel-manning.
People’s stated views are often socially strategic. Nothing wrong with noticing such biases as long as you apply the same lens to yourself as others, which I do.
I think these are exactly the incentives that drive people to say things they would otherwise regard as harmful or wrong:
“One might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else.”
Yes, I get that, but my point is more general. I’m saying that a general disadvantage with this way of discussing via ad hominem-arguments is that people are unlikely to be able to use them in a fair and rational way: they are going to be too lenient against themselves and too strict against their opponents. Hence why they should be used with caution (though they can and must be used to some extent).
This is, I take it, an ad hominem-argument:
It says that there are non-rational reasons why these articles gets written, and implies that is a reason to adjust the probability that the content of those articles are true downwards.
Now ad hominem-arguments do have a place in debating, although they should be used cautiously. I want to emphasize, though, that similar ad hominem-arguments can also be made against those that write the latter sort of posts. E.g., one might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else, etc.
Now given the demographic set-up of the EA movement, it isn’t obvious to me that the latter kind of ad hominem-argument is less plausible than the former. The situation seems to me to be quite symmetric.
But I also want to caution against over-use of ad hominem-arguments, and not only in public, but also when you’re thinking about this yourself. It is very easy to invent a straw man caricature of your opponent—“they only have that view because (insert self-interested motivation)”. This is a good example of that, from the “elitist” post:
This implies that those who oppose elitism do so because of their self-interest in not being hurt by accusations of elitism. I defintely don’t believe that is universally true. Neither do I believe that all of those who advocate that EA should try to focus on recruiting elite members do so because they want to feel like they’re part of an elite group. Instead, I believe that both groups have good reasons for their views, and that we should try to engage with them. (This is not to say that we don’t fall prey to biases; we all do.) This debate needs more steel-manning.
People’s stated views are often socially strategic. Nothing wrong with noticing such biases as long as you apply the same lens to yourself as others, which I do.
I think these are exactly the incentives that drive people to say things they would otherwise regard as harmful or wrong:
“One might argue that they want to be contrarian, or that they want to be part of an exclusive club, that they want to feel better than everyone else.”
In practise, people are much better at spotting others’ biases than their own.
Then get other people to tell you them. My point is in the above I am not claiming other people are doing anything different from me.
Yes, I get that, but my point is more general. I’m saying that a general disadvantage with this way of discussing via ad hominem-arguments is that people are unlikely to be able to use them in a fair and rational way: they are going to be too lenient against themselves and too strict against their opponents. Hence why they should be used with caution (though they can and must be used to some extent).