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 have made a semi-functional rich person impact ranker. It requires votes (and optionally, longform analyses from humans or AIs). If you want to help flesh it out, dm me on here or on twitter or if you have my details, anywhere I am contactable and I'll send it to you.
Meh, you can comment further if you wish. I am choosing to engage here and it's not that costly to me. This has felt like a pretty positive interaction at least at the end.
I appreciate your points. And to your first point I agree that people care about this a lot and feel invested in it. I can empathise with a desire to reduce sexual harassment, I mean, don't most of us want to feel safe and comfortable?
I find it hard to engage with the full sweep of your messages. The choice for me feels like its between long slightly bitter responses and ungaged surface-level ones. I tried to avoid that by picking specific points last time, but you're right that I didn't really engage. I may not be capable of doing so. But let me see if this works.
On "people aren't saying EA is uniquely bad, they're invested" if that were the central thing, I'd expect critical comments here to open with "yes, you're probably right about the comparable-communities point, but I think you're missing the deeper thing." Almost none do. (Some straightforwardly disagree, which is a different thing) Most spend their words on what I got wrong, and only when pressed do they acknowledge agreeing with the empirical claim. To me it feels like the piece has struck a nerve. Does mere investment explain why this post provokes that response?
On "I think this whole post would've gone over differently" — I spent about ten hours on it. I could spend another ten and I don't think it would change the response. The methodological criticisms raised so far would lift the numbers by less than 10x on my read, which is still inside the bounds of the estimate. When I've pushed back on those criticisms, people have given way or stopped responding. I don't think they are the crux.
As for if you could write a post that would be more accepted. Of course you could. I'm not debating that. But I don't think it implies much either. We are different people, with different histories from different EA sub communities and I am mediocre at reading social cues.
You're right that I'm defensive. I am. Part of why is that this comment section feels deeply defensive to me—unwilling to give an inch on the central claim, unwilling to back up criticisms when challenged, willing to imply things about motives. To me, most of these comments feel defensive, including my own.
But I would like us to move to a bette mode of communication. I have at times been defensive and unengaged. Here is a new attempt to engage more fully.
In my epistemic norms if someone makes 5 points, I’ll respond to whichever one I choose, if they make one point, i’ll respond to that. Perhaps we have different norms.
If you have specific criticisms I’m happy to respond to them.
The discussion in the comments so far focuses on two claims:
We can't easily tell from this data whether EA is better or worse than baseline
I agree, though I do think it's some evidence we're not much worse.
Why does it even matter whether EA is better or worse than baseline? Community members are welcome to hold EA to a much higher-than-baseline standard, if they want to.
Yes this seems right and hope it's a thing people will take forward.
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.
I have made a semi-functional rich person impact ranker. It requires votes (and optionally, longform analyses from humans or AIs). If you want to help flesh it out, dm me on here or on twitter or if you have my details, anywhere I am contactable and I'll send it to you.
Meh, you can comment further if you wish. I am choosing to engage here and it's not that costly to me. This has felt like a pretty positive interaction at least at the end.
I appreciate your points. And to your first point I agree that people care about this a lot and feel invested in it. I can empathise with a desire to reduce sexual harassment, I mean, don't most of us want to feel safe and comfortable?
Thanks for your time.
I find it hard to engage with the full sweep of your messages. The choice for me feels like its between long slightly bitter responses and ungaged surface-level ones. I tried to avoid that by picking specific points last time, but you're right that I didn't really engage. I may not be capable of doing so. But let me see if this works.
On "people aren't saying EA is uniquely bad, they're invested" if that were the central thing, I'd expect critical comments here to open with "yes, you're probably right about the comparable-communities point, but I think you're missing the deeper thing." Almost none do. (Some straightforwardly disagree, which is a different thing) Most spend their words on what I got wrong, and only when pressed do they acknowledge agreeing with the empirical claim. To me it feels like the piece has struck a nerve. Does mere investment explain why this post provokes that response?
On "I think this whole post would've gone over differently" — I spent about ten hours on it. I could spend another ten and I don't think it would change the response. The methodological criticisms raised so far would lift the numbers by less than 10x on my read, which is still inside the bounds of the estimate. When I've pushed back on those criticisms, people have given way or stopped responding. I don't think they are the crux.
As for if you could write a post that would be more accepted. Of course you could. I'm not debating that. But I don't think it implies much either. We are different people, with different histories from different EA sub communities and I am mediocre at reading social cues.
You're right that I'm defensive. I am. Part of why is that this comment section feels deeply defensive to me—unwilling to give an inch on the central claim, unwilling to back up criticisms when challenged, willing to imply things about motives. To me, most of these comments feel defensive, including my own.
But I would like us to move to a bette mode of communication. I have at times been defensive and unengaged. Here is a new attempt to engage more fully.
No, they thought it was controversial, but I took on board many suggestions to soften it.
So in your view I’m being defensive/unpleasant in the comments? Or at least significantly more so?
Okay :)
And what about EA compared to typical workplaces/ university spaces?
In my epistemic norms if someone makes 5 points, I’ll respond to whichever one I choose, if they make one point, i’ll respond to that. Perhaps we have different norms.
If you have specific criticisms I’m happy to respond to them.
Thank you.
Yes this seems right and hope it's a thing people will take forward.
You're right. My bad. I retract it.
I have comments, if you're interested.