I agree there are some costs to having some canonical books, but I think there are also some real benefits: for instance it helps to create common knowledge, which can facilitate good discussion and coordination. Also maybe some books are sufficiently important and high-quality that ~all EAs should read them before reading a broader variety of books (e.g. maybe all EAs should read The Precipice and a few other books, but then they should branch out and read a variety of things).
I don’t think that everything on Michael’s list should be canonical, but I think probably some of his top recommendations should be. I agree that some of the things on the list are probably over-canonized too.
I’d also be interested to hear which of the books I listed you think are probably over-canonised, or more generally which commonly recommended books (whether mentioned here or not) you think are overrated. (I’d also be interested to see your top book recommendations, or top recommendations for particular sets of topics.)
I haven’t read everything on your list, but I broadly agree with your rankings for the things I have read (with some tweaks—e.g. I’d probably put Inadequate Equilibria higher and Thinking Fast and Slow lower).
I feel a bit confused still about how many/which things should be canonical. Maybe I want canonical ideas rather than canonical books? E.g. I think some of the ideas in the sequences are important, and should be more widely known/used even in EA. But I also think it contains some less important stuff, and some people find the presentation offputting (while others love it). So I guess I’d ideally like there to be a few different presentations of the same ideas, and people can read the presentation that works best for them (bold academic book, super-well-evidenced academic papers, spicey blog posts, fanfic etc.). Maybe we now have this in some domains—e.g. you listed several presentations of AI safety?
I won’t do a full list of things I like right now, but some quick thoughts:
I think The Great Courses can sometimes be great: I remember particularly liking one on biology. My understanding of biology overall is still quite imprecise, but the course gave me images of how a bunch of cellular biology works mechanistically which I think would be good scaffolding for a better understanding. I also really liked one on Chinese history (I think this one, which is a bit broader but still quite China-focused). I think the quality varies a bit between courses though.
I also love the In Our Time podcast . Especially the science ones—they have a version of the podcast that’s only science. I like that they have several academics, which means you can get a variety of perspectives, and which makes me less worried that I’m only hearing one side of a debate.
P.s. I agree with a lot of your points in the other comment too, and I’m glad you posted this list!
So I guess I’d ideally like there to be a few different presentations of the same ideas, and people can read the presentation that works best for them (bold academic book, super-well-evidenced academic papers, spicey blog posts, fanfic etc.). Maybe we now have this in some domains—e.g. you listed several presentations of AI safety?
This seems like a good point. And yeah, I think we’ve now got that for AI safety (especially as there are other presentations that I’ve heard recommended but didn’t include, in particular Life 3.0), which seems like a good thing.
And thanks for those recommendations; I’ll probably try those out.
I think the quality varies a bit between courses though.
Yeah, FWIW, Science in the Twentieth Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey is from The Great Courses, and I didn’t find it very engaging or useful per minute (hence its low ranking on my list). (That said, Beckstead labelled it “Outstanding”, so perhaps other people would find it more useful than I did.)
I agree there are some costs to having some canonical books, but I think there are also some real benefits: for instance it helps to create common knowledge, which can facilitate good discussion and coordination. Also maybe some books are sufficiently important and high-quality that ~all EAs should read them before reading a broader variety of books (e.g. maybe all EAs should read The Precipice and a few other books, but then they should branch out and read a variety of things).
I don’t think that everything on Michael’s list should be canonical, but I think probably some of his top recommendations should be. I agree that some of the things on the list are probably over-canonized too.
I agree with these points.
I’d also be interested to hear which of the books I listed you think are probably over-canonised, or more generally which commonly recommended books (whether mentioned here or not) you think are overrated. (I’d also be interested to see your top book recommendations, or top recommendations for particular sets of topics.)
I haven’t read everything on your list, but I broadly agree with your rankings for the things I have read (with some tweaks—e.g. I’d probably put Inadequate Equilibria higher and Thinking Fast and Slow lower).
I feel a bit confused still about how many/which things should be canonical. Maybe I want canonical ideas rather than canonical books? E.g. I think some of the ideas in the sequences are important, and should be more widely known/used even in EA. But I also think it contains some less important stuff, and some people find the presentation offputting (while others love it). So I guess I’d ideally like there to be a few different presentations of the same ideas, and people can read the presentation that works best for them (bold academic book, super-well-evidenced academic papers, spicey blog posts, fanfic etc.). Maybe we now have this in some domains—e.g. you listed several presentations of AI safety?
I won’t do a full list of things I like right now, but some quick thoughts:
I think The Great Courses can sometimes be great: I remember particularly liking one on biology. My understanding of biology overall is still quite imprecise, but the course gave me images of how a bunch of cellular biology works mechanistically which I think would be good scaffolding for a better understanding. I also really liked one on Chinese history (I think this one, which is a bit broader but still quite China-focused). I think the quality varies a bit between courses though.
I also love the In Our Time podcast . Especially the science ones—they have a version of the podcast that’s only science. I like that they have several academics, which means you can get a variety of perspectives, and which makes me less worried that I’m only hearing one side of a debate.
P.s. I agree with a lot of your points in the other comment too, and I’m glad you posted this list!
This seems like a good point. And yeah, I think we’ve now got that for AI safety (especially as there are other presentations that I’ve heard recommended but didn’t include, in particular Life 3.0), which seems like a good thing.
And thanks for those recommendations; I’ll probably try those out.
Yeah, FWIW, Science in the Twentieth Century: A Social-Intellectual Survey is from The Great Courses, and I didn’t find it very engaging or useful per minute (hence its low ranking on my list). (That said, Beckstead labelled it “Outstanding”, so perhaps other people would find it more useful than I did.)