Comment Permalink

I had a detailed comment here, but then I realised I seldom use the word "grok" anyway so I don't have much cause to be nitpicking other people's substitutions. :-P

When you shouldn't use EA jargon and how to avoid it

by Robert_Wiblin

Oct 26 20201 min read 22

88

CommunityBuilding effective altruismEffective altruism messaging

Frontpage

For this weekend's EA Global Student Summit I wrote a short talk about jargon that's popular in the EA community. It covers:

When it's good to use
When it's best to avoid
Alternatives to common jargon terms
Words I think we should mostly stop using
Why people bicker about this, and a tiny piece of philosophy of language.

Folks liked it on social media and jargon has been a regular topic here on the EA Forum, so I thought I'd share.

Open commenting is enabled on the Google Slides so you can respond to specific points!

88 Reactions

Mentioned in

172We all teach: here's how to do it better

148Things I Learned at the EA Student Summit

99Four categories of effective altruism critiques

86Posting More Better: Social Media Rules of Thumb

72Native languages in the EA community (and issues with assessing promisingness)

Load more (5/9)

Comments22

Sorted by

New & upvoted

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 10:56 PM

Will BradshawOct 26 202014

I usually find these "lists of jargon + replacements" quite bad (i.e. include many things where the distinction between the term used and the suggested replacement is important and useful, and/or seem to misunderstand the terms they're suggesting replacements for, and/or include many things that virtually nobody says except maybe as a joke).

But I think this one is pretty good and mostly agree with it.

kokotajlodOct 30 20207

My only disagreement is with the order of magnitude thing. I love orders of magnitude talk. I think it's really useful to think in orders of magnitude about many (most?) things. If this means I sometimes say "one order of magnitude" when I could just say "ten times" so be it.

Chris LeongOct 26 202010

Hmm... often I think it is nice to have a standard term for a phenomenon so that people don't have to figure out how to express a certain concept each time and then hope that everyone else can follow. Language also has the advantage that insofar as we convince people to adopt our language, we draw them into our worldview.

EdoAradOct 26 20209

One bad rationalization that I notice myself having sometimes for writing and speaking with "high" jargon is that I say to myself that it's a piece of jargon worth knowing, so I'm actually helping people learn better ways of communicating. I don't think that this is a valid logical conclusion, but instead I can briefly explain some relevant and important terminology or avoid using that if it's not relevant.

I think that my actual motivations are mainly that I feel a need to be very accurate, and that writing is generally slow and tedious for me so it is difficult for me to find better ways of articulating myself once I have already found something that fits what I have in mind. Or - anxiousness and laziness.

Just some stuff that I notice in myself which might be worth sharing :)

MaximiseGoodOct 27 20207

I agree with this post relatively strongly. As someone relatively new to the EA scene, I found the jargon and language quite off-putting and would result in annoyance/feeling like an idiot plus some Googling later on. I'm unsure why we can't just say "What would have happened otherwise" rather than "Counterfactual". I personally try and play down this language as much as possible, especially around people newer to EA because I know the effect it had on me.

I think this post plays into a stronger point that certain aspects of the EA community actually are unwelcoming. Or rather it feels a bit like a secret club with a high bar to entry at times and there is almost certainly an intellectual elitism feel to EA occasionally (see in-group + tribalism). I think that descending further and further into niche phrases, elitism and not keeping the message as open to as many people as is not the right way to go.

I'm strongly in favour of making EA as widespread and as broad as possible. Sure it might dilute job applications or have a few other unthought of negative side effects. But imagine having thousands of more people earning to give for example or contributing their ideas and insight into EA. I wonder how many people have turned away from EA because of Elitism, Jargon or feeling unwelcome? that doesn't feel very EA to me!

Footnote: I realise this comment might come off as a bit bitter. Contrary to that, I really love the EA community and think it has enhanced my life so much in so many ways, this is just one aspect that I think could be improved somewhat - The onboarding of new and potential EAs!

Robert_WiblinOct 30 202014

I'm actually more favourable to a smaller EA community, but I still think jargon is bad. Using jargon doesn't disproportionately appeal to the people we want.

The most capable folks are busy with other stuff and don't have time to waste trying to understanding us. They're also more secure and uninterested in any silly in-group signalling games.

Thomas KwaOct 26 20206

Sometimes I catch myself using jargon even knowing it's a bad communication strategy, because I just like feeling clever, or signaling that I'm an insider, or obscuring my ideas so people can't challenge them. OP says these are "naughty reasons to use jargon" (slide 9), but I think that in some cases they fulfill some real social need for people, and if these motivations are still there, we need better ways to satisfy them.

Some ideas:

Instead of associating jargon with cleverness, mentally reframe things. Someone who uses jargon isn't necessarily clever, especially if they're misusing it. Feynman said "If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it", so pat yourself on the back for translating something into straightforward language when appropriate.
Instead of using jargon to feel connected to the in-group, build a group identity that doesn't rely on jargon. I'm not really sure how to do this.
Instead of using jargon to prevent people from understanding your ideas to challenge them, keep your identity small so you don't feel personally attacked when being challenged. When you have low confidence in a belief, qualify them with an "I think" or "I have a lot of confusing intuitions here, but..."
- Perhaps also doing exposure therapy to practice losing debates without feeling like you've been slapped down
- This is actually one of the reasons I like the "epistemic status" header; it helps me qualify my statements much more efficiently. From now one I'll be dropping the "epistemic status" terminology but keeping the header.

I'm sure there are more and better ideas in this direction.

RyanCareyOct 27 20205

"funging against" -> "cannibalising"

Eevee🔹Oct 28 20206

"displacing (the impact of)"?

Will BradshawOct 27 20205

"competes with"?

Gina_Stuessy🔸Jan 8 20241

I agree we should try using accessible language (when it doesn't compromise our message). It makes our ideas more easily spread to people from various backgrounds (e.g. not just tech people), non-native English speakers, younger people, etc.

I think it'd be great if more EA orgs made this an official part of their style guides/voice guidelines/similar. Was just thinking about this again when I was reading an 80k piece (https://80000hours.org/2023/05/moderation-in-doing-good/) that used the term "sandboxes", when "test environment" is probably clearer to a wider audience.

LinchOct 28 20202

I currently have two polls on whether my posts have too much or too little jargon, one on Twitter and one on Facebook, phrased this way (Twitter poll is public and anonymous, Facebook is not):

Speaking for your own interests and ease of understanding, should I use more or less jargon on {Twitter, Facebook}?
more jargon
less jargon
about the same
I just wanna see results!

Before clicking ahead to them, I'd like other commentators with a (strong) opinion to offer a prediction for what people voted for in the above survey questions. I'd also like them to form an opinion on how a (hypothetical) poll on a more prominent EA figure (eg Robert Wiblin, Greg Lewis, Anna Salamon etc) will resolve.

Facebook, Twitter

NunoSempereOct 27 20202

"Deeply understand" lacks the connotations from Stranger in a Strange Land.

Robert_WiblinOct 27 202034

Yes but grok also lacks that connotation to the ~97% of the population who don't know what it means or where it came from.

Max_DanielOct 27 20208

As one data point, I had to google what Stranger in a Strange Land refers to, and don't know what connotations the comment above yours [1] refers to. I always assumed 'grok' was just a generic synonym for '(deeply) understand', and didn't even particularly associate it with the EA community. (Maybe it's relevant here that I'm not a native speaker.)

[1] Replacing the jargon term 'grandparent' ;)

Howie_LempelOct 28 202021

Most native English speakers from outside of particular nerd cultures also would have no clue what it means.

Will BradshawOct 27 20206

It's not particularly associated with the EA community – I think your impression there is correct. I'd say it's more generic nerd jargon than EA jargon. I actually don't think I hear it used especially often in EA.

I honestly don't remember the detailed connotations from Stranger in a Strange Land, but since I'm neither a Martian nor a member of a weird New-Agey Martian cult I don't consider this a huge disadvantage.

Will BradshawOct 27 20204

And the way it's used in tech is almost totally lacking the mystical angle from Stranger in a Strange Land anyway.

Also Stranger in a Strange Land is a profoundly weird and ideosyncratic book and there's not really any reason to evoke it in most EA contexts.

(That said I do think "deeply understand" doesn't quite do the job.)

Will BradshawOct 27 20202

(I notice that the use of ~ to mean approximately is also a kind of jargon.)

Cameron Meyer Shorb 🔸Oct 27 20201

(That said I do think "deeply understand" doesn't quite do the job.)

I feel the same way, even though I'm relatively strongly opposed to EA jargon, and even though I don't know the specific connotations from Stranger in a Strange Land.

Here's the compromise I've settled on: "to grok" -> "to grok, to really deeply understand."

That is, I'll use the jargon and immediately follow it with the translation. It's inelegant, and I've only used it in conversation so far. Not sure I'd be comfortable with so many redundant words in text. But I like that this compromise:

Conveys as much of the point as possible to someone unfamiliar with the term "grok."
Adds the marginal value of "grok" for anyone who is familiar with the term.
Maybe even adds some of the marginal value of "grok" for someone unfamiliar with the term. The fact that I'm using a foreign word to describes this idea suggests that it's a different/harder-to-capture idea than simply "really deeply understand." So from context, you could conclude that "grok" means "like really deeply understand, but in a different or harder-to-capture way," which is most of what I mean by "grok" anyway.

Will BradshawOct 27 20204

I had a detailed comment here, but then I realised I seldom use the word "grok" anyway so I don't have much cause to be nitpicking other people's substitutions. :-P

Eevee🔹Oct 28 20201

Great presentation! I wish you luck.

By the way, I get tired of saying "impact" since it's cited as a buzzword that people should avoid, especially in business. Do you recommend any synonyms for "impact" (as either a noun or a verb)?