This is described in the “How Is This Project Different From Others Trying To Do Somewhat Similar Things?” and “Do You Have Any Evidence That This Will Work?” sections in the document linked above—here’s the link for convenience.
Gleb_Tsipursky
Karma: 1,557
Video using humor to spread rationality
Irrationality is the worst problem in politics
I hear you about the interesting articles.
This piece was not aimed at folks who want interesting articles, but to the smaller proportion of folks who are concerned about the election outcome and want to do something to help out.
I’m very comfortable with people downvoting my posts, if they reach the minority of folks receptive to them.
Major Life Course Change: Making Politics Less Irrational
Raising the sanity waterline in politics
Voting is like donating hundreds of thousands to charity
I was invited on a radio show to talk further about this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNXw6ifqcNg
A number of other venues republished this piece as well, showing general interest in making politics less irrational:
Salon
Fact-checking doesn’t matter: Human biases control whether or not we’re going to believe politicians
The Dallas Morning News in Dallas, Texas
It’s not what Trump and Clinton say, but how they say it
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/10/24/trup-clinton-say-say
Psychology Today
How Our Biases Cause Us To Misinterpret Politics
The Huffington Post
Fact-Checking Clinton And Trump Is Not Enough
Patheos
How Our Thinking Errors Cause Us To Misinterpret Politics
Globe Gazette in Mason City, Iowa
How thinking errors affect our views of candidates’ statements
The Daily World in Aberdeen, Washington
How thinking errors affect our views of candidates’ statements
The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register in Doylestown, Pennsylvania
How thinking errors affect our views of candidates’ statements
Trying to make politics less irrational by cognitive bias-checking the US presidential debates
Thanks for your good words about my insights on EA marketing, really appreciate it!
Regarding having InIn in the video, the goal is not to establish any sort of equivalence. In fact, it would be hard to compare the other organizations with each other as well. For instance, GiveWell has a huge budget and vastly more staff than any of the other organizations mentioned in the video. The goal is to give people information on various venues where they could get different types of information. For example, ACE is there for people who care about animal rights, and GWWC is there for people who want a community. InIn is there for people who want easy content to inform themselves about effective giving. This is why InIn is specifically discussed as a venue to get content, not recommendations on effective charities or things like that.
Also, please remember people’s priors. This video is not aimed at EAs. The people who watch this video will not have any idea about the popularity of various organizations. InIn would get fine credit within the EA community if we had just produced the video without including InIn itself. The goal is to provide a broad audience with a variety of sources of information about effective giving. We included InIn because it provides some types of content—such as this video—that other orgs do not—as you say, they have a different target group :-)
Animated explainer video promoting EA-themed effective giving ideas and meta-charities
Tech behemoths form artificial-intelligence nonprofit
I like those other examples for labeling others, though—might be a nice general strategy to employ.
I agree that it does produce disassociation, but I don’t think, for me, it’s about disassociating from emotions. It’s a disassociation from an identity label. It helps keep my identity small in way that speaks to my System 1 well.
Weird works for me, and I actually associate positive value with weirdness. But of course your mileage may vary. Any term that works to indicate distance from an identity label viscerally to one’s System 1 will do, as Gram_Stone pointed out.
A Weird Trick To Manage Your Identity
Agreed, to me it also makes no sense to do cash transfers to people with above average income. I see basic income as mainly about a social safety net.
Here’s my piece in Salon about updating my beliefs about basic income. The goal of the piece was to demonstrate the rationality technique of updating beliefs in the hard mode of politics. Another goal was to promote GiveDirectly, a highly effective charity, and its basic income experiment. Since it had over 1K shares in less than 24 hours and the comment section is surprisingly decent, I’m cautiously optimistic about the outcome.
Um, Breitbart news is hardly a credible site to use to attack Politifact. Besides, that citations also had Washington Post and The New York Times—do you call them fake news as well?