He was accepted into the most recent EA Global conference and tried to raise funds for Intentional Insights there, with the benefit of the implied social proof.
I’m not sure what makes this such a pressing issue. While InIn may not be, strictly speaking, an “EA” organization, they do self-identify as promoters of “effective giving”. Many EA organizations are in fact expending resources on ‘outreach’ goals that seemingly do not differ in any meaningful way from InIn’s broad mission. Where InIn differ most markedly is in their methods; such as focusing much of their outreach on third-world countries where messages can be delivered most cheaply, and where the need for people to make effective career choices is that much starker, given the opportunity for “doing good” locally by addressing a vast amount of currently-neglected issues.
The article you link to doesn’t mention either “pattern” or “deception” in its text—at least, not in any relevant sense. It looks more like a laundry list of purported concerns; I’m ready to believe that some of these concerns might be more justified than others—but that still does not convince me that there’s a relevant ‘pattern’ here.
I’m not sure what makes this such a pressing issue. While InIn may not be, strictly speaking, an “EA” organization, they do self-identify as promoters of “effective giving”. Many EA organizations are in fact expending resources on ‘outreach’ goals that seemingly do not differ in any meaningful way from InIn’s broad mission. Where InIn differ most markedly is in their methods; such as focusing much of their outreach on third-world countries where messages can be delivered most cheaply, and where the need for people to make effective career choices is that much starker, given the opportunity for “doing good” locally by addressing a vast amount of currently-neglected issues.
Did you follow the link to the roundup of Gleb’s and InIn’s pattern of deception?
The article you link to doesn’t mention either “pattern” or “deception” in its text—at least, not in any relevant sense. It looks more like a laundry list of purported concerns; I’m ready to believe that some of these concerns might be more justified than others—but that still does not convince me that there’s a relevant ‘pattern’ here.