I tend to think portraying EA as “nascent” is appealing to more readers than not describing it that way. This is for two reasons.
First, many readers will be attracted by the possibility of becoming part of the cool new thing, especially the younger and intellectually-oriented readers, who are more likely to convert to EA causes, since the EA movement swings younger and more intellectual than the general population.
Second, describing the EA movement as “nascent” is accurate, in terms of the number of people who identify with EA (as a rough heuristic, the main EA FB group has under 10K members). So just describing it as a movement without identifying it as a small movement might be perceived by those researching the topic after reading the article as disingenuous.
Upvoted for pushing EA to mainstream. I didn’t personally like the style of your article, but then I’m not the target audience of TIME either.
Question: does it benefit the cause to portrait EA as a “nascent” movement?
I tend to think portraying EA as “nascent” is appealing to more readers than not describing it that way. This is for two reasons.
First, many readers will be attracted by the possibility of becoming part of the cool new thing, especially the younger and intellectually-oriented readers, who are more likely to convert to EA causes, since the EA movement swings younger and more intellectual than the general population.
Second, describing the EA movement as “nascent” is accurate, in terms of the number of people who identify with EA (as a rough heuristic, the main EA FB group has under 10K members). So just describing it as a movement without identifying it as a small movement might be perceived by those researching the topic after reading the article as disingenuous.