Seems like the rapid-fire nature of an InkHaven writing sprint is a poor fit for a public post under a personally-charged summary bullet like “Oliver puts personal conflict ahead of shared goals”.
High-quality discourse means making an effort to give people the benefit of the doubt when making claims about their character. It’s worth taking time to carefully follow our rationalist norms of epistemic rigor, productive discourse, and personal charity.
I’d expect a high-evidence post about a very non-consensus topic like this to start out in a more norm-calibrated and self-aware epistemic tone, e.g. “I have concerns about Oliver’s decisionmaking as leader of Lightcone based on a pattern of incidents I’ve witnessed in his personal conflicts (detailed below)”.
I don’t particularly want to damage the interests of Lighcone Infrastructure; I want people who’d find this information important for their decision-making to be aware of this information, and most of the value is in putting the information out there. People can make their own inferences about whether they agree with my and my friends’ conclusions, and I don’t particularly think that spending much resources on making a better-argued posts presenting the same information stronger is a very important thing.
I’m not particularly satisfied with the quality of this post, but that’s my aesthetic preferences to a much larger extent than it is a judgement on the importance of putting this post out there.
(I would also feel somewhat bad about writing this post well after deriving better writing skills from Inkhaven, which means I wanted to publish it early on.)
Seems like the rapid-fire nature of an InkHaven writing sprint is a poor fit for a public post under a personally-charged summary bullet like “Oliver puts personal conflict ahead of shared goals”.
High-quality discourse means making an effort to give people the benefit of the doubt when making claims about their character. It’s worth taking time to carefully follow our rationalist norms of epistemic rigor, productive discourse, and personal charity.
I’d expect a high-evidence post about a very non-consensus topic like this to start out in a more norm-calibrated and self-aware epistemic tone, e.g. “I have concerns about Oliver’s decisionmaking as leader of Lightcone based on a pattern of incidents I’ve witnessed in his personal conflicts (detailed below)”.
I don’t particularly want to damage the interests of Lighcone Infrastructure; I want people who’d find this information important for their decision-making to be aware of this information, and most of the value is in putting the information out there. People can make their own inferences about whether they agree with my and my friends’ conclusions, and I don’t particularly think that spending much resources on making a better-argued posts presenting the same information stronger is a very important thing.
I’m not particularly satisfied with the quality of this post, but that’s my aesthetic preferences to a much larger extent than it is a judgement on the importance of putting this post out there.
(I would also feel somewhat bad about writing this post well after deriving better writing skills from Inkhaven, which means I wanted to publish it early on.)