It feels to me like inclusion should be based on plausible impact, whether direct or indirect, rather than immediate apparent relevance to effective altruism. If this essay improves our thinking, and makes the effective altruist movement better at a rate that’s comparable to the other stuff posted here, then it’s a valuable post.
* I might be a little biased because I think EA should be prioritizing epistemic rationality much more highly.
I agree with this pretty strongly. But also I think authors have to make an effort to bridge the gap with intermediate steps in their reasoning, rather than pouring unexplained insights—however genius they may be—onto a bewildered reader.
It feels to me like inclusion should be based on plausible impact, whether direct or indirect, rather than immediate apparent relevance to effective altruism. If this essay improves our thinking, and makes the effective altruist movement better at a rate that’s comparable to the other stuff posted here, then it’s a valuable post.
* I might be a little biased because I think EA should be prioritizing epistemic rationality much more highly.
I agree with this pretty strongly. But also I think authors have to make an effort to bridge the gap with intermediate steps in their reasoning, rather than pouring unexplained insights—however genius they may be—onto a bewildered reader.