CFAR mission wasn’t marketing but actually teaching people to be more rational
And this makes a lot of sense, if you assume that advocacy is completely irrelevant to teaching people to be more rational. (‘Marketing’ being just another word for advocacy.) But what if both are necessary and helpful? Then it makes sense for someone to work on marketing rationality—either CFAR itself, Intentional Insights or someone else entirely.
CFAR certainly need to do some form of marketing to get people to come to it’s workshops. As far as I understand CFAR succeeds at the task of doing marketing enough to be able to sell workshops.
As we as a community get better at actually having techniques to make peopel more rational we can step up marketing.
I don’t think the cracked/buzzfeed-style articles are going to change much about the day-to-day decision making of the people who read them. CFAR workshop on the other hand do.
But that isn’t even the whole story. CFAR manages to learn about what works and what doesn’t work through their approach. It allows them to gather empiric data that will in the future also be able to be transmitted through a medium that’s less intensive than a workshop.
This rationalist community isn’t about New Atheism where they know the truth and the problem is mainly that outsiders don’t know the truth and they have to bring the truth to them.
Actually, you’d be surprised at what kind of impact can be had through Lifehacker-type articles. Dust specks if sufficiently large in nature are impactful, after all. And the Lifehacker articles reach many thousands.
Moreover, it’s a question of continuous engagement. Are people getting engaged with this content more than just passing on to another Lifehack article? We have evidence that they are, as described in my comment here.
Actually, you’d be surprised at what kind of impact can be had through Lifehacker-type articles. Dust specks if sufficiently large in nature are impactful, after all.
Dust specks don’t cost a person time to consume. The also have no opportunity cost. Your articles on the other hand might have opportunity cost.
Furthermore it’s not clear that the articles have a positive effect.
As an aside the article’s do have SEO advantages through their links that are worth appreciating even if the people who read them are’t affected.
We have evidence that they are, as described in my comment here.
I don’t see evidence that you succeed in getting people to another site via your articles. Do you have numbers?
I describe the numbers in my comment here about the only website where I have access to the backend.
Compare the article I put out on Lifehack to other articles on Lifehack. Do you think my article on Lifehack has better return on investment than a typical Lifehack article?
And this makes a lot of sense, if you assume that advocacy is completely irrelevant to teaching people to be more rational. (‘Marketing’ being just another word for advocacy.) But what if both are necessary and helpful? Then it makes sense for someone to work on marketing rationality—either CFAR itself, Intentional Insights or someone else entirely.
CFAR certainly need to do some form of marketing to get people to come to it’s workshops. As far as I understand CFAR succeeds at the task of doing marketing enough to be able to sell workshops.
As we as a community get better at actually having techniques to make peopel more rational we can step up marketing.
Well...cracked/buzzfeed-style articles vs. niche workshops. I wonder which strategy has a broader impact?
I don’t think the cracked/buzzfeed-style articles are going to change much about the day-to-day decision making of the people who read them. CFAR workshop on the other hand do.
But that isn’t even the whole story. CFAR manages to learn about what works and what doesn’t work through their approach. It allows them to gather empiric data that will in the future also be able to be transmitted through a medium that’s less intensive than a workshop.
This rationalist community isn’t about New Atheism where they know the truth and the problem is mainly that outsiders don’t know the truth and they have to bring the truth to them.
Actually, you’d be surprised at what kind of impact can be had through Lifehacker-type articles. Dust specks if sufficiently large in nature are impactful, after all. And the Lifehacker articles reach many thousands.
Moreover, it’s a question of continuous engagement. Are people getting engaged with this content more than just passing on to another Lifehack article? We have evidence that they are, as described in my comment here.
Dust specks don’t cost a person time to consume. The also have no opportunity cost. Your articles on the other hand might have opportunity cost. Furthermore it’s not clear that the articles have a positive effect.
As an aside the article’s do have SEO advantages through their links that are worth appreciating even if the people who read them are’t affected.
I don’t see evidence that you succeed in getting people to another site via your articles. Do you have numbers?
I describe the numbers in my comment here about the only website where I have access to the backend.
Compare the article I put out on Lifehack to other articles on Lifehack. Do you think my article on Lifehack has better return on investment than a typical Lifehack article?