I’ve heard of the controversy. I think it was mentioned in a link post on slatestarcodex, and obviously on GiveWell’s blog.
the community seems to be comprehensively inept, poor at marketing, extremely insular, methodologically unsophisticated but meticulous, transparent and well-intentioned
I find it stylistically strange to have a long list of negative adjectives end with two positive ones (transparent and well-intentioned are good things, right?) without any explanation. Wouldn’t one say something like “These things suck:...., but on the good side there is also ….”?
More importantly, you do not explain why “EA movement building does more harm than good”.
I understand you to mean “EA movement building does more harm than good, because the EA movement does more harm than good” (stop me right there if I miss understood you). Why though?
As I understood it, no one argues that de-worming does more harm than good. The argument is only that it is ineffective, not harmful. If you want to make some argument that de-worming takes away resources that should be better spend, you have to actually make that argument.
Could you explain what’s so bad about GiveWell’s reaction, particularly the blog post you linked? Not just where you disagree with their analysis, but how that post is evidence that GiveWell is more harmful than beneficial.
Finally, even if the EA-movement is wrong about de-worming, there are other interventions that EA tends to support. Your post isn’t very convincing right now because it doesn’t mention that fact at all. Do you think that all interventions popular among EAs are on as shaky a ground as de-worming (or worse)?
I find it stylistically strange to have a long list of negative adjectives end with two positive ones (transparent and well-intentioned are good things, right?) without any explanation. Wouldn’t one say something like “These things suck:...., but on the good side there is also ….”?
I think the “but” was the transition, and that “meticulous” was also intended positively.
As I understood it, no one argues that de-worming does more harm than good.
I was under the impression that specialists worried that mass deworming leads to resistance, by standard evolutionary logic, and so argue that the deworming initiatives are committing a long-term harm for nonexistent short-term gains.
I was under the impression that specialists worried that mass deworming leads to resistance, by standard evolutionary logic, and so argue that the deworming initiatives are committing a long-term harm for nonexistent short-term gains.
That’s one hypothesis, but there isn’t much compelling evidence for it. Although there is good reason to believe the evidence for mass deworming as the among the ‘best’ interventions in shakey, there is not good reasons to believe it’s a ‘bad’ intervention either.
Stylistically
Style isn’t a big priority to me unless is compromises understandabiltiy by those interested enough to summount readability challenges. I assume that from their ownwards worthy concepts will prolliferate into the broader population.
It’s not mentioned anywhere on SSC AFAIK. I wrote this post because it’s absent in the rationality sphere. GiveWell’s treatise is quite pathetic honestly, but I won’t be posting a critique of it because (1) it would shoot down a high quality organisation and may do more harm then good and (2) it would be an effortful undertaking that I would prefer to publish under a more reputable pseudonym.
Finally, even if the EA-movement is wrong about de-worming, there are other interventions that EA tends to support. Your post isn’t very convincing right now because it doesn’t mention that fact at all.
That’s very obvious though. Deworming consistutures roughly half the suggested charities of most EA orgs, so I think it’s fair to say methodological issues reflect on the whole movement.
Do you think that all interventions popular among EAs are on as shaky a ground as de-worming (or worse)?
No, but all of GiveWell’s top 4 are, for various reasons I have discussed elsewhere. I am more convinced by the case for MIRI and some lower prioritised GiveWell charities but again, beyond the scope of my time atm.
I’ve heard of the controversy. I think it was mentioned in a link post on slatestarcodex, and obviously on GiveWell’s blog.
I find it stylistically strange to have a long list of negative adjectives end with two positive ones (transparent and well-intentioned are good things, right?) without any explanation. Wouldn’t one say something like “These things suck:...., but on the good side there is also ….”?
More importantly, you do not explain why “EA movement building does more harm than good”.
I understand you to mean “EA movement building does more harm than good, because the EA movement does more harm than good” (stop me right there if I miss understood you). Why though?
As I understood it, no one argues that de-worming does more harm than good. The argument is only that it is ineffective, not harmful. If you want to make some argument that de-worming takes away resources that should be better spend, you have to actually make that argument.
Could you explain what’s so bad about GiveWell’s reaction, particularly the blog post you linked? Not just where you disagree with their analysis, but how that post is evidence that GiveWell is more harmful than beneficial.
Finally, even if the EA-movement is wrong about de-worming, there are other interventions that EA tends to support. Your post isn’t very convincing right now because it doesn’t mention that fact at all. Do you think that all interventions popular among EAs are on as shaky a ground as de-worming (or worse)?
I think the “but” was the transition, and that “meticulous” was also intended positively.
I was under the impression that specialists worried that mass deworming leads to resistance, by standard evolutionary logic, and so argue that the deworming initiatives are committing a long-term harm for nonexistent short-term gains.
That’s one hypothesis, but there isn’t much compelling evidence for it. Although there is good reason to believe the evidence for mass deworming as the among the ‘best’ interventions in shakey, there is not good reasons to believe it’s a ‘bad’ intervention either.
Style isn’t a big priority to me unless is compromises understandabiltiy by those interested enough to summount readability challenges. I assume that from their ownwards worthy concepts will prolliferate into the broader population.
It’s not mentioned anywhere on SSC AFAIK. I wrote this post because it’s absent in the rationality sphere. GiveWell’s treatise is quite pathetic honestly, but I won’t be posting a critique of it because (1) it would shoot down a high quality organisation and may do more harm then good and (2) it would be an effortful undertaking that I would prefer to publish under a more reputable pseudonym.
That’s very obvious though. Deworming consistutures roughly half the suggested charities of most EA orgs, so I think it’s fair to say methodological issues reflect on the whole movement.