Richard Möhn
Posts 4
Comments74
To be specific: The above is a linear, high-level retelling of the history of smallpox, some of it misleading (eg. about the scab being ‘consumed’, which sounds as if people had to eat it). The creative part is dressing it in a language of metaphor and pathos, which many apparently like, but I was wondering if it was written by AI until I saw the publication date. A composition of first-person accounts and tight, plain-language description of the eradication efforts would have been more powerful. If you disagree, read some good historians.
Search for ‘Ashgro’ in https://survivalandflourishing.fund/2025/recommendations to find examples of projects we're sponsoring.
What does the research say about the fraction of people who decided on ethical grounds to have/not to have children and then were happy with their choice on emotional grounds vs. regretted their choice?
It might be better to have them for impact and find out that it's great to have them independent of impact than to not have them because one didn't feel like having them. (Similar to my experience. I think babies are gross rather than cute. Only my own baby is cute.)
I know there is more nuance in your post, but if I take your title at face value, I would say: When I'm evaluating candidates and I catch you not being honest (ie. lying or distorting the truth), I'm going to reject your application. If I catch you lying outright, I'm never going to consider you again as a candidate. If I find out after you were hired that you lied during the application process, I would probably do my best to get you fired. (I mean the ‘you’ in a general sense. I'm not expecting you, JDLC, would lie.)
If you give honest, but unspecific answers, and it's about an important skill, I'm going to ask you follow-up questions to figure out what's going on.
I find it a bit disconcerting that you write about the costs to the org, but not the costs to the applicants. Ie. applicant puts a lot of work into applying for a role and then you decide that that one is the one you won't fill. It may very well be that the trade is still worth it and that the negative effect on candidates can be mitigated. But lacking even a single sentence in this direction seems callous. (I'm writing this as someone who spends more time on the side of hiring people than on the side of applying for jobs.)