I wondered this as well. I think the context here makes me think otherwise:
It’s a positive-spirited show where contestants are treated well, so wouldn’t be like a debate or a news article.
It’s this or not this (rather than choosing to allocate resource in high-fidelity rather than mass media).
Do you think something broad, like Aaron’s suggested ‘I like thinking about effective altruism, which is the art of doing as much good as you can with your money and your time’ has possible negatives, like being misinterpreted badly or putting people off EA?
I think for most people who hadn’t heard of EA, it’s very unlikely that they’ll start searching for it online after hearing about it briefly on daytime TV. For those that have already heard about EA it may just reinforce what they already think about it, some positive and some negative. Even just the phrase effective altruism can be interpreted as arrogant if you don’t spend some time explaining what you mean.
I prefer people to have high value impressions when they come across EA, whether that’s online/in person, rather than having more but less valuable touch points.
I do wonder what the downside is here. It’s a fleeting, low-fidelity impression of EA that will probably not stick in most minds. However, if 10-20 people donate money after hearing about it through Patrick, it might already be positive in sum.
I would avoid mentioning EA, it seems hard to get across nuance in 20 seconds and there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation even in longer form media.
Mentioning what you study/plan to work on and where to donate seems like a fine thing to do.
I wondered this as well. I think the context here makes me think otherwise:
It’s a positive-spirited show where contestants are treated well, so wouldn’t be like a debate or a news article.
It’s this or not this (rather than choosing to allocate resource in high-fidelity rather than mass media).
Do you think something broad, like Aaron’s suggested ‘I like thinking about effective altruism, which is the art of doing as much good as you can with your money and your time’ has possible negatives, like being misinterpreted badly or putting people off EA?
I think for most people who hadn’t heard of EA, it’s very unlikely that they’ll start searching for it online after hearing about it briefly on daytime TV. For those that have already heard about EA it may just reinforce what they already think about it, some positive and some negative. Even just the phrase effective altruism can be interpreted as arrogant if you don’t spend some time explaining what you mean.
I prefer people to have high value impressions when they come across EA, whether that’s online/in person, rather than having more but less valuable touch points.
I do wonder what the downside is here. It’s a fleeting, low-fidelity impression of EA that will probably not stick in most minds. However, if 10-20 people donate money after hearing about it through Patrick, it might already be positive in sum.
I’d be slightly surprised if it led to a single donation, I’m not even sure how many searches it would lead to