It might be better to collate and condense your series into one post, once it’s finished (or starting now). These individual posts really aren’t convincing, and probably hurt your case if anything. Part of that is the Forum’s conventions about content being standalone. But the rest is clarity and evidence: your chosen style is too esoteric.
I don’t think it’s our unwillingness to hear you out. Some of the most well-regarded posts on here are equally fundamental critiques of EA trends, but written persuasively / directly:
(From my perspective, I’m trying to be as clear & straightforward as possible in the main body of each post. I am also using poetic quotes at the top of some of the posts.)
In this one, it’s that there is no main body, just a gesture off-screen. Only a small minority of readers will be familiar enough with the funding apparatus to complete your “exercise to the reader...” Maybe you’re writing for that small minority, but it’s fair for the rest to get annoyed.
In past ones (from memory), it’s again this sense of pushing work onto the reader. Sense of “go work it out”.
I don’t have any advice to offer, but as a datapoint for you: I applaud your goal and am even sympathetic to many of your points, but even I found this post actively annoying (unlike your previous ones in this series). It feels like you’re writing a series of posts for your own benefit without actually engaging with your audience or interlocutors. I think this is fine for a personal blog, but does not fit on this forum.
It might be better to collate and condense your series into one post, once it’s finished (or starting now). These individual posts really aren’t convincing, and probably hurt your case if anything. Part of that is the Forum’s conventions about content being standalone. But the rest is clarity and evidence: your chosen style is too esoteric.
I don’t think it’s our unwillingness to hear you out. Some of the most well-regarded posts on here are equally fundamental critiques of EA trends, but written persuasively / directly:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsE5t6qhGC65fEpzN/growth-and-the-case-against-randomista-development
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jmbP9rwXncfa32seH/after-one-year-of-applying-for-ea-jobs-it-is-really-really
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DxfpGi9hwvwLCf5iQ/objections-to-value-alignment-between-effective-altruists
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jSPGFxLmzJTYSZTK3/reality-is-often-underpowered
What about my style stands out as esoteric?
(From my perspective, I’m trying to be as clear & straightforward as possible in the main body of each post. I am also using poetic quotes at the top of some of the posts.)
In this one, it’s that there is no main body, just a gesture off-screen. Only a small minority of readers will be familiar enough with the funding apparatus to complete your “exercise to the reader...” Maybe you’re writing for that small minority, but it’s fair for the rest to get annoyed.
In past ones (from memory), it’s again this sense of pushing work onto the reader. Sense of “go work it out”.
Yes, I want people to think about this for themselves. (I don’t think that’s esoteric.)
I don’t have any advice to offer, but as a datapoint for you: I applaud your goal and am even sympathetic to many of your points, but even I found this post actively annoying (unlike your previous ones in this series). It feels like you’re writing a series of posts for your own benefit without actually engaging with your audience or interlocutors. I think this is fine for a personal blog, but does not fit on this forum.
Thank you for this feedback.
From my perspective, I’m writing both for my own sake and for others.
Even if your intentions are good surely it should be clear at this point that your approach is proving completely ineffective?