Perhaps because I like saying overrated/underrated.
But also because overrated/underrated is a quick way to provide information. "Forecasting is underrated by the population at large" is much easier to think of than "forecasting is probably rated 4/10 by the population at large and should be rated 6/10"
Over/underrated requires about 3 mental queries, "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks" "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks?" "Am I gonna have to be clear about what I mean?"
Scoring the current and desired status of something requires about 20 queries "Is 4 fair?" "Is 5 fair" "What axis am I rating on?" "Popularity?" "If I score it a 4 will people think I'm crazy?"...
Like in some sense your right that % forecasts are more useful than "More likely/less likely" and sizes are better than "bigger smaller" but when dealing with intangibles like status I think it's pretty costly to calculate some status number, so I do the cheaper thing.
Also would you prefer people used over/underrated less or would you prefer the people who use over/underrated spoke less? Because I would guess that some chunk of those 50ish karma are from people who don't like the vibe rather than some epistemic thing. And if that's the case, I think we should have a different discussion.
I guess I think that might come from a frustration around jargon or rationalists in general. And I'm pretty happy to try and broaden my answer from over/underrated - just as I would if someone asked me how big a star was and I said "bigger than an elephant". But it's worth noting it's a bandwidth thing and often used because giving exact sizes in status is hard. Perhaps we shouldn't have numbers and words for it, but we don't.
I also think it's brave of Austin to do this, and in general I like bravery, even if it causes people do things I don't like. Doesn't seem like a huge or secret kind of bravery either, which are sometimes time bad kinds.
As I read this comment section, the story my mind generates is a people want to express 'this is bad and I want people to see that I think it's bad'. Is that how people who are writing the negative comments feel?
Or do you feel like you could be convinced this is fine/none of your business?
Cos personally I think I could be convinced this is a bad idea, or that Manifund should not be considered an org in good standing[1]. I don't think it would destroy me to come to that conclusion.
I probably do think that Manifund is not an easy safe org for your sweet friend who is new to EA, though I guess I think that of CEA and CG and Nonlinear too
I guess I am curious if the debt you feel brought her to your attention or changed your decision. I think I weakly endorse the former and weakly to moderately unendorse the latter.
That said, I think this paragraph is kind of notable:
I felt a keen debt to the FTX Future Fund. They provided seed funding for Manifold. They funded the retreat which drew me into the EA community, and the conference where I met my wife. Much of Manifund’s work today is directly inspired by the Future Fund’s approach.
I also feel a debt to the Future Fund, they gave me my first grant for the work I now do. But I don't feel much debt towards Caroline there. Plus, perhaps, if i am to forgive her her debts, perhaps that should also cancel out benefits?
I moderately think that EA could do with caring a less about reputation and more about good work. Does Caroline do good work? Seems like the org will internalise that, so it's probably up to donors and other orgs to decide.
Hey, elsewhere someone pointed out that the community seems more interested in engaging with criticism than I previously thought so here are some thoughts:
Here growth seems to be about more people engaging with CEA. I am unsure that is the main component of impact regarding EA. I prefer 80k's notion of trajectory changes and going back over time and updating those. Surely CEA succeeds when EA does a lot of what we think of as good.
Commmunity healthiness is also a key part of this. Does the community feel able to take on struggles, does it have integrity? I guess all this feels a bit divorced from what is discussed in this piece.
Personally, I have found CEA's recent output pretty uninspiring and corporate. And I think maybe that lines up with a real focus on growth metrics, like when a company has been sold from it's previous owners and is run by a conglomerate. Numbers are easy to track so they get tracked. Is EA well? And perhaps my model of CEA takes a lot of flack in return and so just wants to get on with the job, but that isn't gonna fix the relationship between us (and maybe that's fine)
I don't particularly like being on the forum these days so I am rarely here. I guess I think if the community felt more alive/capable of disagreement/self-assured etc then I would be, but the whole place just smells of things that can't be said and there are far too many topics without a shared knoweldge base so its hard to engage with the factual stuff.
As I've said elsewhere I imagine most people at CEA work hard and really want to help. I am sure the authors of this piece do. And I know posting on the forum can be a gruelling experience. But maybe there is a reason for this. A fundamental thing about this community that isn't well such that this is the case. And maybe it's worth focusing more on that rather than just ever more members.
Interesting take. I don't like it.
Perhaps because I like saying overrated/underrated.
But also because overrated/underrated is a quick way to provide information. "Forecasting is underrated by the population at large" is much easier to think of than "forecasting is probably rated 4/10 by the population at large and should be rated 6/10"
Over/underrated requires about 3 mental queries, "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks" "Is it better or worse than my ingroup thinks?" "Am I gonna have to be clear about what I mean?"
Scoring the current and desired status of something requires about 20 queries "Is 4 fair?" "Is 5 fair" "What axis am I rating on?" "Popularity?" "If I score it a 4 will people think I'm crazy?"...
Like in some sense your right that % forecasts are more useful than "More likely/less likely" and sizes are better than "bigger smaller" but when dealing with intangibles like status I think it's pretty costly to calculate some status number, so I do the cheaper thing.
Also would you prefer people used over/underrated less or would you prefer the people who use over/underrated spoke less? Because I would guess that some chunk of those 50ish karma are from people who don't like the vibe rather than some epistemic thing. And if that's the case, I think we should have a different discussion.
I guess I think that might come from a frustration around jargon or rationalists in general. And I'm pretty happy to try and broaden my answer from over/underrated - just as I would if someone asked me how big a star was and I said "bigger than an elephant". But it's worth noting it's a bandwidth thing and often used because giving exact sizes in status is hard. Perhaps we shouldn't have numbers and words for it, but we don't.
Glad to hear it. I am curious if that is common here, or not (though I guess you can't answer that).
Do you mean good to think about PR in general or or engage on forum posts about it?
I also think it's brave of Austin to do this, and in general I like bravery, even if it causes people do things I don't like. Doesn't seem like a huge or secret kind of bravery either, which are sometimes time bad kinds.
As I read this comment section, the story my mind generates is a people want to express 'this is bad and I want people to see that I think it's bad'. Is that how people who are writing the negative comments feel?
Or do you feel like you could be convinced this is fine/none of your business?
Cos personally I think I could be convinced this is a bad idea, or that Manifund should not be considered an org in good standing[1]. I don't think it would destroy me to come to that conclusion.
I probably do think that Manifund is not an easy safe org for your sweet friend who is new to EA, though I guess I think that of CEA and CG and Nonlinear too
I guess I am curious if the debt you feel brought her to your attention or changed your decision. I think I weakly endorse the former and weakly to moderately unendorse the latter.
That said, I think this paragraph is kind of notable:
I also feel a debt to the Future Fund, they gave me my first grant for the work I now do. But I don't feel much debt towards Caroline there. Plus, perhaps, if i am to forgive her her debts, perhaps that should also cancel out benefits?
I weakly think that Austin can hire who he likes.
I moderately think that EA could do with caring a less about reputation and more about good work. Does Caroline do good work? Seems like the org will internalise that, so it's probably up to donors and other orgs to decide.
Do you know how this compares to 80ks similar metric? I dunno, seems a bit weak (only counts careers, not how they differ, no attempt at attribution)
Hey, elsewhere someone pointed out that the community seems more interested in engaging with criticism than I previously thought so here are some thoughts:
As I've said elsewhere I imagine most people at CEA work hard and really want to help. I am sure the authors of this piece do. And I know posting on the forum can be a gruelling experience. But maybe there is a reason for this. A fundamental thing about this community that isn't well such that this is the case. And maybe it's worth focusing more on that rather than just ever more members.