I did read his post. The question is not whether the term makes sense but whether it’s a good strategy.
It’s not about getting people to act according to principles but to rebrand what previously would be called cause-neutral as principle-first and continue to do the same thing CEA did in the past.
Sadly, cause-neutral was an even more confusing term, so this is better than the comparative. I also think that the two notions of principles-first are less disconnected than you think, but through somewhat indirect effects.
Even if the term would be an improvement, why would changing out one term for another make you say “early signs have been promising”. Promising in the sense that he will come up with new terms, because the core problems of EA is not having the right labels to speak about what EAs are doing?
I would find the perspective on EA where the biggest problem of EA is about it using the wrong labels, to be a quite strange perspective.
A good post about a strategy that attempts to produce indirect effects would lay out the theory of change through which the indirect effects would be created.
I would suggest adopting a different method of interpretation, one more grounded in what was actually said. Anyway, I think it’s probably best that we leave this thread here.
I did read his post. The question is not whether the term makes sense but whether it’s a good strategy.
It’s not about getting people to act according to principles but to rebrand what previously would be called cause-neutral as principle-first and continue to do the same thing CEA did in the past.
Sadly, cause-neutral was an even more confusing term, so this is better than the comparative. I also think that the two notions of principles-first are less disconnected than you think, but through somewhat indirect effects.
Even if the term would be an improvement, why would changing out one term for another make you say “early signs have been promising”. Promising in the sense that he will come up with new terms, because the core problems of EA is not having the right labels to speak about what EAs are doing?
I would find the perspective on EA where the biggest problem of EA is about it using the wrong labels, to be a quite strange perspective.
A good post about a strategy that attempts to produce indirect effects would lay out the theory of change through which the indirect effects would be created.
I would suggest adopting a different method of interpretation, one more grounded in what was actually said. Anyway, I think it’s probably best that we leave this thread here.