Thanks for writing this! I'm interested in how you think one should prepare for interviews like these. Did you write out your thoughts and what messages you wanted to communicate beforehand then try to work them into the conversation? Do you meditate or exercise etc. to calm yourself down before the interview takes place?
Doing any form of exercise that activates the parasympathetic nervous system, instead of the more anxious sympathetic is a good idea. I usually just try to sit laying back and not clench fists or contract the peripheral musculature to be more at ease. About preparing for an interview, you should have a mindset in which you can say what you want to say while also saying what they want you to say in one breadth, since then it's less likely to be cutoff.
What is the kind of distortion you should expect if you are interviewed or go through media as a representative of EA?
Here is my experience (It is cross-posted to my personal blog)
I’ve been interviewed since I was 10 in many media. So I may have something valuable to share with EA’s on media distortion. When young I was interviewed in school with some of the other kids on a few occasions. Sometimes we’d be interviewed because the school had a different methodology, sometimes because they needed good students, the reasons were variegated, but one thing remained constant. I’d notice that the TV show would come to the school already knowing exactly what they wanted us to say. They’d basically tell the teacher what he should inquire us about or lecture about, and the teacher would do so. Later they would interview us with questions hardly related to the class they were supposed to be covering, and even these questions would later be cut into a few seconds of something they already knew to begin with. I noticed that even the news part of TV was not news back then, it was pre-arranged fake reality.
As an arrogant young teenager, at age 14, I refused giving further interviews and I’d leave class if it was being filmed for some reason.
Sometimes though, you want to be filmed for some ulterior purpose. This happened to me a few years ago when a movie director and producer came to me asking whether I would think it is a good idea that she made a documentary about me. More specifically, a documentary about the fact that I wanted to be cryopreserved when I died, “Diego Wants to Live Forever”. I was shocked and felt unsure about it. I sat down and told her “I can only decide later on”. So I asked people what they would do on LessWrong, the World’s largest rationality blog.
I didn’t want to be filmed for filming’s sake. But there were ideas I could promote through the film: discussion of the Technological Singularity, Transhumanism, Immortalism, all topics unheard of in my native Brazil. Slowly those could be turned into discussion of GWWC and other effective altruist organizations as well, later. So all things considered I choose for it. The movie is yet to be released since it grew from a 15 to a 60 minutes documentary. The one thing I kept in mind throughout is that if my goal was to self promote, to promote my image, the movie would be a terrrible way to do so, since being the sole cryonicist in a christian country makes you look completely insane, not fashionable and interesting. If I wanted to promote those ideas, I’d pay a price in my image but attracting new interested people to those memes that surround cryonics (not to cryonics itself, I have no interest in promoting it) seemed to be worthy. If someone wants to interview you or film you, always consider it a personal image sacrifice for a cause, and see if the cause is worthy enough. You’ll never be depicted as you’d like to be. If you are not the writer, then the goal of the media is not your goal, check trade-offs carefully.
After that I was featured on a TED talk. TED is libertarian media so they actually let you do what you came to do, and help you improve. The purpose of the TED@ event was to select people for TED Global 2013. No one from my country got selected, but that didn’t matter, because the topic on which I spoke, Effective Altruism, got selected. TED curators are smart, and they had no reason to pick me over anyone to talk on TED Global about Effective Altruism, they did what they should and invited Peter Singer to speak on behalf of the movement. Some media can really help you achieve your goals, specially if your goals don’t mind whether you are present or not, nearly always the case with Effective Altruism. If the media that wants you is TED like, go for it and don’t worry, they are there to help you.
Later on were my 15 seconds of fame. This time I knew the distortion would be drastic, uncanny, absurd. The world's second largest TV network, (Globo, wanted to interview me for their most-viewed Sunday show. At the same time, Record, a smaller TV network, was going to broadcast their own interview with me. Basically, 40 million people would see me on TV. This is a massive amount of people, and I knew nothing I said could be immune from distortion, you don’t get to be the second worldwide without some manipulation skills. The interview was again related to the one thing I don’t want to get people’s attention to, cryonics. A man’s body was being held in the country due to a legal fight between sisters, since he wanted to be cryopreserved and only the daughter who lived with him wanted to send him to Cryonics Institute. That is what the media wants, they want to see half sisters fighting over a dead frozen body, that’s what gets most eyeballs, and I was a side dish given I’m the only Brazilian actually signed up for cryonics.
Not long before I was contacted to provide the interview, I had founded the Effective Altruism and Transhumanism promoting institute, http://www.ierfh.org, we were growing and producing a lot. Our purpose was broadcasting, and there would never be a chance of broadcasting the right things for 40 million people. The question in my mind was, was it worth it to broadcast the wrong things?
I decided in favor of it. I tried to negotiate with the reporters so that my name would appear as “IERFH’s director” somehow. Something, a tiny tiny thing, that could connect that whole tragic comedy they wanted to broadcast as news to my actually serious work related to things I actually cared about. Of course this was to no avail. The major network displayed my name and title in the specific manner they had promised not to before the interview (what am I going to do, sue a company worth tens of billions?) and the other network didn’t do what I asked, but at least also not the exact opposite.
I had done my homework, I wrote a piece on cryonics connecting it to Transhumanism to attract those who googled about me or cryonics or both. The bridge was there. We paid Google ads to show up on top on Google for a few days. If there were similar minds we would attract them to talk to us and collaborate.
What I learned from my experience is that 40 million is a massive number of people. It is so massive that though I appeared for a very short time in one channel, and none of the links that I wanted them to provide were there, dozens of people came to me or to us in the next few days. Few had something to offer or knew what they were talking about, but it has shown me the power of big numbers. When people say no press is bad press, it’s because when you have massive numbers, there will be some viewers on the most favourable end of the bell curve who can help you. If the press is big enough, I recommend you do it, regardless of distortion. It’s those who see through that matter most.
But for most press related matters, the numbers are more mundane, in the low thousands, and the costs and benefits are more comparable. Sometimes it is better not to do it. The recent coverage of effective altruism by Rhys Southan (with a distorted title, but keep in mind not even your interviewer has complete control over his writing), is a good case in point. I invite you to use it as proxy for how much you are willing to be distorted. Here are the parts of his article that mention my name:
From this point of view, the importance of most individual works of art would have to be negligible compared with, say, deworming 1,000 children. An idea often paraphrased in EA circles is that it doesn’t matter who does something – what matters is that it gets done. And though artists often pride themselves on the uniqueness of their individuality, it doesn’t follow that they have something uniquely valuable to offer society. On the contrary, says Diego Caleiro, director of the Brazil-based Institute for Ethics, Rationality and the Future of Humanity, most of them are ‘counterfactually replaceable’: one artist is as pretty much as useful as the next. And of course, the supply is plentiful.
‘We’re actually very stacked out with people who have good mathematic skills, good philosophy skills,’ Robert Wiblin, executive director of the Centre for Effective Altruism, told me. ‘I would really love to have some artists. We really need visual designers. It would be great to have people think about how Effective Altruism could be promoted through art.’ Aesthetic mavericks who anticipate long wilderness years of rejection and struggle, however, would seem to have little to contribute to the cause. Perhaps they should think about ditching their dreams for what Caleiro calls ‘an area with higher expected returns’.
And the next paragraphs, about a 1/4 of the whole written interview, are the content from which he drew those above (the rest was simply discarded), I don’t want you to assume that I found his representation of me very degrading or very uplifting. I want you to see for what it actually is, so you can judge for yourself whether you would do an interview if you were in my place. And since our cluster of ideas, like transhumanism and effective altruism are becoming more mainstream by the day, it may not be long before you may have to face similar choices to those I did. Here it is:
When I was originally going to write an article about effective altruism, it was going to be about earning to give. My one hesitation was that I felt like someone else could easily write a similar article about earning to give, and I worried that made my “replaceability” very high. (And it turns out it was — someone had already written such an article.) Do you find yourself applying the concept of “replaceability” to other aspects of your life? Like could you consider the replaceability of someone you’re dating and the marginal improvement of happiness they bring to your life compared to someone else you could be dating?
That is a great question because Love, as very few things in life, is exactly the kind of emotion in which you can’t apply the logic or replaceability, or as we philosophers call it, counterfactuals. A great part of what love is is valuing a relationship. A specific one relationship that is built over time. Most songs about love, as Marvin Minsky reminds us, are about how the loved one could become anything, even a dumb psycho crazy nutcrack, and we would still love them. There are things that counterfactual reasoning can’t buy. For all others, there is effective altruism.
I suspect artists will tend to resist the effective altruism idea: there seems to be no place for them within EA, unless they happen to already be very successful, in which case they can earn to give. Do aspiring artists who want to do art full time pretty much have to give up that dream and change courses if they want to become effective altruists?
Artists are fighting in red markets. The things they make dispute people’s attention, and there are way more things available to pay attention to then there is attention to be given. Nearly all artists are counterfactually replaceable. This is why you feel they have no space within the EA movement. What I find interesting is that most of the early effective altruists come from a philosophy background, and the exact same is true of philosophy. Nearly no one reads academic publications by philosophers, and the area is so disputed it is hardly the case that anyone who left the profession would leave a significant blank behind that no one else could fulfill. Even then the EA movement thrives among philosophers, we should expect that over time, artists will find similar unusual paths to either conciliate their interests, or else shift their perspectives.
And related to the previous question, one thing that effective altruism does is put things in perspective, and artists and other creators of various sorts won’t like the perspective EA provides: by judging actions based on how much they improve well-being and decrease harm, the works of art, comedy routines and so on that people create turn out not to be that important after all. Devoting years of your life to writing a novel, for instance — while many see this as noble in some way — seems to be a horribly inefficient way to make a positive difference. Is there a way to reconcile effective altruism with artists’ beliefs that their creations are worthwhile contributions?
The short answer is no. Something will have to give, either effective altruist artists shift their art to promote altruism, like some friends of mine are doing here in São Paulo, or they abandon the artistic field. Art is a noble pursuit, and it should always be the case that a small subset of humanity is pursuing artistic expression and interacting with the world in that way. But I don’t think it will ever be the case that this subset will become so small that it would actually be worth it, all things considered, to choose to become a novelist instead of an effective altruist in some other area with higher expected returns. Not because the value of art is any less than people believe it is, but just because it is infinitely easier to understand the value of art, than to understand the value of saving the lives of hundreds of people who live across the ocean, or across the century. When I say it explicitly it may not seem that way, but hundreds of millions of people are able to see the value of art, and only very few, less than one in a million, if you consider the entire world, have already understood how much good they can create by being as altruistic as possible.
This is it, make your decisions accordingly and keep in mind that the media is part of reality, in a sense, of nature, it is not good or bad intrinsically. It has it’s properties just like gravity, which can help or hinder, and if you want to use it, you have to understand those properties and be prepared for them.
While I agree with a lot of what you wrote, I disagree about the 'all publicity is good if large enough' idea.
You are entirely correct that you can get some good help from people at one end of the curve, and at the start, this often feels like all that matters. For example, a company might think that if no-one currently knows about them, then all publicity is good as people can't reduce their purchasing from zero, but others might increase it. However if something is going to become reasonably big regardless of the coverage, then it can have bad effects. This is true even if one's own organisation is small, but the coverage can reflect badly on related organisations with similar goals (such as the rest of the EA movement).
Bad publicity and bad first impressions can last a long time, and people looking for sensation can quite easily trawl through past coverage looking for the one bad sensational thing. If something inadvertently damaged the reputation of effective altruism, that would be a bad effect. If the damage was very high, that would be a really terrible effect. Taking risks with this public good of the movement's reputation is something we should really discourage.
All of this means that as an organisation or movement starts to get bigger, it should become much more conservative about reputational issues like this, though exactly where to draw the line is unclear. For what its worth, your example of the Rhys Southan article seemed to me to be on the right side of the line, and the transhumanist one seemed to me to be roughly neutral.
I suppose there are some very different kinds of reputational costs, which backtracking will reach differently. So paying a reputational cost for the movement of appearing associated with a behavior that is considered morally incorrect in some cultures (for instance, being associated with substance abuse, or with unusual marital practices) might have significant social costs in the future, for the individual and the movement alike.
However, thinking of how people feel embarrassed that they may say a sentence wrong, blush at the wrong time, slip on some statement, I tend to think people are over-calibrated about these minor, non-moral types of embarrassment. This sort of embarrassment grows frequently out of status anxiety, and this kind does not feel particularly costly.
So I fully agree that as it grows larger, reputation should matter more, specially when it comes to reputation that mirrors our moral instincts.
I agree with this. I should clarify that the types of thing I am generally concerned about is coming off as too abrasive, too negative, too amateurish, or too associated with legal but disliked ideas that aren't part of our core considerations.