This was a good read—thanks for sharing. In the spirit of engaging with the invitation to comment below, here are my n = 1 thoughts. Quick background: I’ve been EA-adjacent for ~10 years and Forum-lurking for ?? years, but only recently really identified as an EA and joined the Forum.
Main point: I would like to use the Forum more! While EA-the-movement isn’t a huge part of my life, EA-the-ideas are close to my core values. I’d like to refine my moral thinking, learn more about doing good in the world, and hang out with people who are somewhat but not excessively like-minded. I stop by the Forum ~daily, but find several barriers to engaging more (whether reading or writing). In no particular order:
There’s not as much new content as I’d hope, or at least easily discoverable content on the front page. Sometimes I stop by hoping to find a new thread that grabs me, but the front page threads are either not new or too serious (see below). Maybe Instagram/Reddit style always-something-new isn’t the right niche for the Forum, but it sure is good for engagement.
It’s very serious! We have lots of posts about “did you know about this new moral catastrophe,” “why you should definitely rearrange your life around doing good,” “10,000 words on the nature of moral epistemics.” These posts are often well written, thoughtful, and topical—but they’re also heavy. This means the Forum doesn’t fit into my life as a quick break from work or a relaxing nights-and-weekends read, nor do I form the semiconscious association that Forum = fun.
The standards are very high. Sometimes I write something EA-adjacent[-adjacent] on my blog, but it seems below the implicit quality threshold of the Forum where typical posts are long, thoughtful, and brimming with citations. I’m intimidated away from posting, especially while I’m poor in karma and general non-numerical community credibility.
Of course standards being high also has numerous benefits.
Maybe this is what quick takes is for? Do I have quick takes? Should I be writing them here? Would anybody read them given that most of my takes are variants on “yeah that seems complicated I’m unsure of the nature of morality and truth here?”
Even when I think I have something reasonable to say, it feels like it’s probably been said better elsewhere on the forum and broadly understood by the community, because...
There’s not a lot of disagreement. The Forum community seems broadly roughly aligned on both values and what kinds of evidence are compelling, so the posts that do well tend to stand out in the strength of their claims or the depth of their evidence (both reasonable) -- not their novelty. I would be delighted to see more polite, thoughtful, good-faith disagreement. Encountering EA in the mid 2010s vaguely felt like meeting someone who always had a fresh piece of data or thought experiment for you; less so these days.
I don’t really know that I have a suggestion here. Of all the online spaces I visit, the Forum has by far the most thoughtful comments, well researched posts, and mutual presumption of good faith. I cherish this! But I suspect it’s not free.
There’s not as much new content as I’d hope, or at least easily discoverable content on the front page.
I agree with this, and I hope that we can improve the situation with a combination of community building and more actively steering discussions (for example via Forum events).
It’s very serious!
Yeah I agree this is true, but I’m not sure what (if anything) to do about it. At least, if this is a problem, it doesn’t feel like a top priority one to address. My hypothesis is that doing more community building work will address this somewhat, like if users feel more comfortable with each other and feel like they know each other better (than right now).
The standards are very high.
Agree with this one too. :) However I do think that having high standards does have benefits, and I currently think that we should actually have higher standards on the margin. I agree that there are trade-offs, and I am sad to lose out on good content purely due to people feeling intimidated.
If you’re feeling unsure about posting something, please feel free to reach out to Toby or contact the team here. We’re happy to give you feedback, and help you figure out what works on the Forum. Also, quick takes are another great solution, I def recommend using them!
There’s not a lot of disagreement.
This one’s interesting, and I feel like I don’t know how to evaluate whether this is true. I think there’s a related phenomenon where, when someone is first learning about EA, there are a ton of ideas that are new to them, and over time the rate of encountering novel ideas decreases (partly because there are less low-hanging fruit maybe?). I agree that having “more polite, thoughtful, good-faith disagreement” on the Forum would be great though, and I hope that our team can build up a community that encourages that. (If you have any specific people in mind who could bring that energy here, please reach out to Toby and send him suggestions!)
Reading Evan’s comment and Sarah’s response—along with some other comments like @titotal’s—updates me to a mild-to-moderate degree toward the possibility that there may be a felt (and possibly real) need for two or more related spaces that call for mutually inconsistent design criteria. One might be more academic, formal, and rigorous while the other related space would be more flexible, open, and accessible. That feels like a big change from the status quo, and I’m hardly confident my update is directionally correct. But I think it’s worth pondering whether different groups of users may be seeking things from the Forum experience that are valid, worthwhile, and yet incompatible.
Yeah, I think it’s hard (and maybe not worth our resources) to build one space that fulfills all of those criteria. I think it would be fun for the Forum to have a more casual space, but there exist many other places that can fill that need:
This was a good read—thanks for sharing. In the spirit of engaging with the invitation to comment below, here are my n = 1 thoughts. Quick background: I’ve been EA-adjacent for ~10 years and Forum-lurking for ?? years, but only recently really identified as an EA and joined the Forum.
Main point: I would like to use the Forum more! While EA-the-movement isn’t a huge part of my life, EA-the-ideas are close to my core values. I’d like to refine my moral thinking, learn more about doing good in the world, and hang out with people who are somewhat but not excessively like-minded. I stop by the Forum ~daily, but find several barriers to engaging more (whether reading or writing). In no particular order:
There’s not as much new content as I’d hope, or at least easily discoverable content on the front page. Sometimes I stop by hoping to find a new thread that grabs me, but the front page threads are either not new or too serious (see below). Maybe Instagram/Reddit style always-something-new isn’t the right niche for the Forum, but it sure is good for engagement.
It’s very serious! We have lots of posts about “did you know about this new moral catastrophe,” “why you should definitely rearrange your life around doing good,” “10,000 words on the nature of moral epistemics.” These posts are often well written, thoughtful, and topical—but they’re also heavy. This means the Forum doesn’t fit into my life as a quick break from work or a relaxing nights-and-weekends read, nor do I form the semiconscious association that Forum = fun.
The standards are very high. Sometimes I write something EA-adjacent[-adjacent] on my blog, but it seems below the implicit quality threshold of the Forum where typical posts are long, thoughtful, and brimming with citations. I’m intimidated away from posting, especially while I’m poor in karma and general non-numerical community credibility.
Of course standards being high also has numerous benefits.
Maybe this is what quick takes is for? Do I have quick takes? Should I be writing them here? Would anybody read them given that most of my takes are variants on “yeah that seems complicated I’m unsure of the nature of morality and truth here?”
Even when I think I have something reasonable to say, it feels like it’s probably been said better elsewhere on the forum and broadly understood by the community, because...
There’s not a lot of disagreement. The Forum community seems broadly roughly aligned on both values and what kinds of evidence are compelling, so the posts that do well tend to stand out in the strength of their claims or the depth of their evidence (both reasonable) -- not their novelty. I would be delighted to see more polite, thoughtful, good-faith disagreement. Encountering EA in the mid 2010s vaguely felt like meeting someone who always had a fresh piece of data or thought experiment for you; less so these days.
I don’t really know that I have a suggestion here. Of all the online spaces I visit, the Forum has by far the most thoughtful comments, well researched posts, and mutual presumption of good faith. I cherish this! But I suspect it’s not free.
I appreciate your thoughtful reflections! :)
I agree with this, and I hope that we can improve the situation with a combination of community building and more actively steering discussions (for example via Forum events).
Yeah I agree this is true, but I’m not sure what (if anything) to do about it. At least, if this is a problem, it doesn’t feel like a top priority one to address. My hypothesis is that doing more community building work will address this somewhat, like if users feel more comfortable with each other and feel like they know each other better (than right now).
Agree with this one too. :) However I do think that having high standards does have benefits, and I currently think that we should actually have higher standards on the margin. I agree that there are trade-offs, and I am sad to lose out on good content purely due to people feeling intimidated.
If you’re feeling unsure about posting something, please feel free to reach out to Toby or contact the team here. We’re happy to give you feedback, and help you figure out what works on the Forum. Also, quick takes are another great solution, I def recommend using them!
This one’s interesting, and I feel like I don’t know how to evaluate whether this is true. I think there’s a related phenomenon where, when someone is first learning about EA, there are a ton of ideas that are new to them, and over time the rate of encountering novel ideas decreases (partly because there are less low-hanging fruit maybe?). I agree that having “more polite, thoughtful, good-faith disagreement” on the Forum would be great though, and I hope that our team can build up a community that encourages that. (If you have any specific people in mind who could bring that energy here, please reach out to Toby and send him suggestions!)
Reading Evan’s comment and Sarah’s response—along with some other comments like @titotal’s—updates me to a mild-to-moderate degree toward the possibility that there may be a felt (and possibly real) need for two or more related spaces that call for mutually inconsistent design criteria. One might be more academic, formal, and rigorous while the other related space would be more flexible, open, and accessible. That feels like a big change from the status quo, and I’m hardly confident my update is directionally correct. But I think it’s worth pondering whether different groups of users may be seeking things from the Forum experience that are valid, worthwhile, and yet incompatible.
Yeah, I think it’s hard (and maybe not worth our resources) to build one space that fulfills all of those criteria. I think it would be fun for the Forum to have a more casual space, but there exist many other places that can fill that need:
The EA subreddit
EA Anywhere’s slack workspace and virtual events
EA Gather (a virtual space to hang out and co-work)
The EA community on Twitter
The Effective Altruism Facebook group
The EA Hangout Facebook group
The EA Corner Discord
Personally I don’t use any of these very often so I don’t have much opinion on them.