Other people. I feel that certain perspectives on the forum are expressed very strongly, and with little consideration towards other points of view. One of them is "if you are in a position of power you should be considerate towards those who are not as they may feel pressured by you" which I agree with. But the same person sometimes also very strongly expresses some other view, regarding, i.e. dating, full of "shoulds" and often strongly rooted in the US norms and culture (in my perspective). I simply find it ironic.
Sorry, it will be not a very kind comment and a bit of a rant - upper American class on this forum keeps saying "if you are in a position of power you should be very considerate of others and their boundaries, and give them space, because sometimes they may feel pressured to agree with you and find it hard to speak up". Yeah, exactly.
Would you agree with the statement: "EA made an attempt to attract as many students and young people as possible, and therefore neglected older groups. As a result, the movement to a huge extent: a) has a too small proportion of emotionally mature people, which makes it more turbulent, and, as a result, less effective; b) makes it not very attractive to mid-career and mature people, who - even if impressed by young prodigies, don't regard them as their thought partners (due to lack of life experience); c) puts too much pressure on young people, as they are sometimes put into leadership positions which they are emotionally not ready for" .
For the record, I don't know if I agree with this statement. But I'm curious what do you guys think.
I think the model is a good idea, but would work only for those, who run workshops occasionally/outside their usual dating circle, otherwise people would be incentivized not to do so. Plus, it shouldn't be treated as a "golden solution for all of the issues", rather used with a fair amount of consideration for everybody involved.
A bit of side topic here, but thank you very much Jeff for writing this post and making an effort to understand everyone, structure this discussion and come to some agreement/conclusions. I see a lot of value in it. Plus, it was very comforting for me personally, as some previous talks left me quite upset.
Yes, I'd agree. It wasn't a very well thought-through example. If we remove a "special guest" part, would it make the whole comment more solid and understandable?
Yup. Not to mention that EA community is based also in the countries other than the US, which, I feel, is often forgotten about.
Is it your first article like that? And did you write it solo? I'm not into global health, but overall it looks super impressive.
Other people. I feel that certain perspectives on the forum are expressed very strongly, and with little consideration towards other points of view. One of them is "if you are in a position of power you should be considerate towards those who are not as they may feel pressured by you" which I agree with. But the same person sometimes also very strongly expresses some other view, regarding, i.e. dating, full of "shoulds" and often strongly rooted in the US norms and culture (in my perspective). I simply find it ironic.
Sorry, it will be not a very kind comment and a bit of a rant - upper American class on this forum keeps saying "if you are in a position of power you should be very considerate of others and their boundaries, and give them space, because sometimes they may feel pressured to agree with you and find it hard to speak up". Yeah, exactly.
Yes, I also usually prefer texts with more pronounced structure. It's just a kind note, so maybe you can take it into consideration in the future :)
Would you agree with the statement:
"EA made an attempt to attract as many students and young people as possible, and therefore neglected older groups. As a result, the movement to a huge extent:
a) has a too small proportion of emotionally mature people, which makes it more turbulent, and, as a result, less effective;
b) makes it not very attractive to mid-career and mature people, who - even if impressed by young prodigies, don't regard them as their thought partners (due to lack of life experience);
c) puts too much pressure on young people, as they are sometimes put into leadership positions which they are emotionally not ready for"
.
For the record, I don't know if I agree with this statement. But I'm curious what do you guys think.
I think the model is a good idea, but would work only for those, who run workshops occasionally/outside their usual dating circle, otherwise people would be incentivized not to do so. Plus, it shouldn't be treated as a "golden solution for all of the issues", rather used with a fair amount of consideration for everybody involved.
A bit of side topic here, but thank you very much Jeff for writing this post and making an effort to understand everyone, structure this discussion and come to some agreement/conclusions. I see a lot of value in it. Plus, it was very comforting for me personally, as some previous talks left me quite upset.
Looks great, thanks! Could you please recommend the one which is particularly interesting/a good place to start? :)
Yes, I'd agree. It wasn't a very well thought-through example. If we remove a "special guest" part, would it make the whole comment more solid and understandable?