All of Simon_Jenkins's Comments + Replies

Thanks for taking the time to think and write about how we can reduce the risk of getting ill. I think it's fair to say that this advice is a bit more alarming than what other organizations are saying, like the Centers for Disease Control, the National Health Service, the World Health Organization, and the UK Foreign Office. For example, NHS.uk says that you don't need to self isolate unless you are feeling unwell and have been to one of the listed countries recently, and they also say that even if you are self isolating, it is ok to accept food drop-offs.

... (read more)
eca
4y10
0
0

Yeah, its an obvious tension. I'm not sure I can satisfactorily resolve it from the perspective of appealing to authority. My advice is based on first principles and aggregating the thoughts of other people who are primarily thinking from first principles. The first principle argument goes like this:

1. It is very unlikely that this disease will be contained in western countries. The CDC apparently agrees with this for the United States.

2. Medical countermeasures are unlikely to be widely available this year. There is some chance that the virus will st... (read more)

Thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I'm really surprised at your description of my comment, however. In fact I'm so surprised that I wonder if my comment was badly misunderstood. Did people think that by saying "it might make Labour supporters seem more intellectual" that I was saying "Labour supporters are/seem stupid"? I didn't mean that at all. I've voted Labour in the last two general elections.

Or was there something else in my comment that seemed antagonistic?

No, I don't think it seemed anti-Labour. I just think anyone who's not super committed to consequentialism is going to be uncomfortable with this:

"While it's true that these vulnerabilities might eventually be closed, it might still be good to exploit them while they're open."

A lot of people who are involved in EA just don't ever want to "exploit vulnerabilities" in well-meaning groups of people (which you suggested might be a good idea depending on the consequences)

6
Will Bradshaw
4y
For what it's worth, I think it was pretty much a model EA Forum comment and am disappointed that people downvoted it so strongly. It seemed to be doing the difficult and valuable thing of "trying to work out what is actually the best thing to do" and met all the default commenting guidelines. It also didn't come across to me as at all antagonistic.

I think it would be good if people could explain why they found my comment so disagreeable

8
Kirsten
4y
I didn't downvote it, but it does come across as quite uncooperative/antagonistic toward other groups who are trying to do some good in this world, and I'm generally against that on the Forum.

I agree that this strategy goes against the spirit of party membership, and I'm sympathetic to norm-subscription in a lot of contexts. But are norms a weightier consideration than the reasons for taking up the strategy outlined by OP? While it's true that these vulnerabilities might eventually be closed, it might still be good to exploit them while they're open.

To what extent do you think the relatively small numbers of EAs taking advantage of this strategy will sow mistrust? To me it doesn't seem like it will make a lot of difference, and indeed there mig

... (read more)
4
Aaron Gertler
4y
(I upvoted your comment because it was an original contribution made in the spirit of curiosity, even though I doubt its suggestions.) In my experience watching people comment on political strategies that bring terms like "hacking" to mind, most don't see it as especially "cool".  I've seen people react skeptically even to ideas like "vote pairing", which is used to get around the oft-derided kludge of the U.S. electoral college and doesn't necessarily harm any particular party or interest. Voting in the leadership election if one isn't an active Labour supporter seems like an effort to dilute the values of active Labour supporters, which I don't see as very appealing to... active Labour supporters. I agree with Haydn that this seems like a reasonable thing to do if you actively want Labour to have more influence and you think the cost is worth it (though I don't have an opinion on the cost/benefit model in the post), but I'm with Greg on this not seeming very ethical if you aren't a "sincere supporter".

1) The winner of the last lottery, Tim, wrote several paragraphs explaining his choice of where to send the winnings. Is this required/expected of future winners? I can understand that a winner selecting a non-EA cause might end up having to convince CEA of their decision, but if I win and just want to give the money to a bona fide EA cause, do I have to say anything about my thought process?

2) Are there advocacy-related reasons for donating directly to charities instead of joining such a lottery? For example, if I'm trying to increase my impact by convinc... (read more)

3
CarlShulman
6y
See Sam's comment below: "to emphasise this, as CEA is running this lottery for the benefit of the community, it's important for the community to have confidence that CEA will follow their recommendations (otherwise people might be reticent to participate). So, to be clear, while CEA makes the final call on the grant, unless there's a good reason not to (see the 'Caveats and Limitations' section on the EA.org Lotteries page) we'll do our best to follow a donor's recommendation, even if it's to a recipient that wouldn't normally be thought of as a strictly EA." One data point: last year Jacob Steinhardt put a majority of his donations into the lottery for expected direct impact, and then allocated the remainder himself for practice donating and signaling value.
1
RyanCarey
6y
Yes, but on the other hand, the audacity of the scheme will surely get some attention, and those who are attracted by it will probably be intelligent, analytical types.