Hi I am Flo! I am ex CEO of ThoughtSaver.com an EdTech startup trying to revolutionise how we learn and then apply those learnings to improve wellbeing and decision making. Our team is all EA aligned and funded by Sparkwave.tech.
I am a highly motivated, curious soul that loves a challenge and taking action.
I enjoy running, climbing, reading non-fiction books, and eating chocolate.
@florencehinder (Twitter, LinkedIn, etc).
Check out more about me at my personal website - florencehinder.com
I would appreciate a TL;DR of this article, and I am sure many others would too! It helps me to decide if it's worth spending more time digging into the content.
It was even too long for chatGPT to summarize 🫠
Good point. I agree that it's important to have steps to mitigate this!
Happy to discuss in the comments ways in which we could try to reduce this. Here is my current best guess:
1. Not making jokes about finding someone attractive, and if you do this, try to recognize this and prevent your self doing it next time!
2. Noticing if other people do it and call them out! They might not realise they are doing this (feel free to reference this article).
3. Hold all people to high levels of epistemic rigor.
I love the transparency of this post!
Also, I particularly like how regranting utilizes the value of local knowledge.
"regrantors and grant recommenders could exploit local knowledge and diverse networks to make promising projects move forward that we might not have known about or had time to investigate ourselves."
Maybe EA could do with some more hackathon-type events? It seems like one of the easiest ways (from the individual's POV) to get a very intensive experience of working with many different people!
I think she is suggesting that only reading up about one person's thoughts and treating it like gospel is cult-like and bad, then sharing that singular view gives off cult-like impressions (understandably). Rather, being more open to learning many different people's views, forming your own nuanced opinion, and then sharing that is far more valuable both intrinsically and extrinsically!
I think it's pretty clear you shouldn't be saying "some well-respected figures think X because Y" regardless, that's like 101 bad epistemics because it's not referencable and vague.
Hey Andre!
Thanks for your encouragement and feedback (and for pointing out the Farnam mistake, I'll update that right away!)
It's great to hear from others that also love learning!
Thanks for the suggestion Aaron! I've been amongst EA for a while but what a great way to get more involved.