You got it right, 1 was the suggested change I was most disappointed by, as the weakening of rhetorical force also took away a substantive claim that I actually meant to be making: that GiveWell wasn’t actually doing utilitarian-consequentialist reasoning about opportunity cost, but was instead displaying a sort of stereotyped accumulation behavior. (I began Effective Altruism is Self-Recommending with a cute story about a toddler to try to gesture at a similar “this is stereotyped behavior, not necessarily a clever conscious scheme,” but made other choices that interfered with that.)
4 turned out to be important too, since (as I later added a quote and link referencing) “unfairness” literally was a stated motivation for GiveWell—but Zack didn’t know that at the time, and the draft didn’t make that clear, so it was reasonable to suggest the change.
You got it right, 1 was the suggested change I was most disappointed by, as the weakening of rhetorical force also took away a substantive claim that I actually meant to be making: that GiveWell wasn’t actually doing utilitarian-consequentialist reasoning about opportunity cost, but was instead displaying a sort of stereotyped accumulation behavior. (I began Effective Altruism is Self-Recommending with a cute story about a toddler to try to gesture at a similar “this is stereotyped behavior, not necessarily a clever conscious scheme,” but made other choices that interfered with that.)
4 turned out to be important too, since (as I later added a quote and link referencing) “unfairness” literally was a stated motivation for GiveWell—but Zack didn’t know that at the time, and the draft didn’t make that clear, so it was reasonable to suggest the change.
The other changes basically seemed innocuous.