The title of this post did not inform me about the claim “that EAs have collectively decided that they do not need to participate in tight feedback loops with reality in order to have a huge, positive impact -- [and] this is a deeply rooted mistake.”
I came very close to not actually reading what is an interesting claim I’d like to see explored because it came close to the end and there was no hint of it in the title or the start of the post. Since it is still relatively early in the life of this post you may want to consider revising the title and layout of the post to communicate more effectively.
I feel that you are choosing to not honor my request by writing this comment, please DM me if I’m mistaken about that:
I do have a humble request to make of you though… as you continue on, perhaps feeling as though you really don’t have time for this but might as well give it a quick skim anyhow to see what Milan has been up to, if as you do this you notice a desire to respond to something I say, please don’t until you actually have space to read this post and all the other posts I linked to above carefully (with care, with space). If you don’t foresee being able to do this in the immediate future, that’s fine… I just ask that you don’t respond to this post in any way until you do.
I don’t think this is actually a reasonable request to make here?
Why do you think that it is an unreasonable request?
Not Jeff, but I agree with what he said, and here are my reasons:
The feedback Jpmos is giving you is time-sensitive (“Since it is still relatively early in the life of this post...”)
The feedback Jpmos is giving you is not actually about what you said. Rather, it’s simply about the way you’re communicating it, letting you know that, at least in Jpmos’s case, your chosen method of communication came close to not being effective (unless your goals in writing the post are significantly different than the usual goals of someone writing a post, i.e. to communicate and defend a claim. Admittedly, you say that “I want you to think carefully and spaciously for yourself about what is best, and then do the things that seem best as they come to you from that spacious place”, and maybe that is a significantly different goal from the usual one, but even so, there’s a higher likelihood of readers doing that if they get the claim, or at least the topic, of the post up front.)
Admittedly, you say that “I want you to think carefully and spaciously for yourself about what is best, and then do the things that seem best as they come to you from that spacious place”, and maybe that is a significantly different goal from the usual one
This is my goal. This is what I want. This is my intention. (I tried to state it clearly in the post.)Wouldn’t it be interesting if this goal were significantly different from how goals are usually used?
Let me say this: I am extremely confused, either about what your goals are with this post, or about how you think your chosen strategy for communication is likely to achieve those goals.
I’m curious about what being extremely confused feels like for you, in your body and in your mind.