= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mkf comments on "The Difference Between Medicine and Poison is Dosage" Shirts and Bags - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (50)
Sorry to be blunt, but I find them simply ugly. This many fonts and effects make text hard to read and look like someone's first engagement with MS Word when they were 12.
Thanks for that feedback, really helpful - appreciate the bluntness :-) I'll take that feedback back to our designer.
Gleb, consider not making little object level changes, and reconsider IntentionalInsights as a whole. There is nothing rational about your approach to rationality outreach as far as I can see. I read your annual report. You spend 40k on intentional insights thing this year and deliver minimal value. It's absurd. You're good at writing and rational outreach as a journalist. I encourage you to keep doing that. The rest is annoying is shit. If it weren't so blatantly awkard one would think you were intentionally taking advantage of the rationalist community. Take it from someone who is also still learning how to make contributions that are valued by the community - if you get strong negative reactions to your discussion posts, really, deeply reconsider the strategy behind something - what I've learned is that even posts where I'm approaching something all wrong get upvoted if the topic is generally of interest. Your post here is an example of ,,,
I just realised I'm becoming even more critical than those who've criticised me here. I was going to delete this comment but I know Gleb appreciates critical feedback...
I understand your concerns and your desire to help improve rationality outreach! I think we have a difference of opinion about the impact of Intentional Insights :-) There are lots of people who do want rationality-themed shirts, for example, and the fact that the current design doesn't work for many is just evidence of the need for more work on this area.
Would anything convince you to change your mind about Intentional Insights?
Of course, two things:
1) If I see clear evidence that Intentional Insights does not have support from those rationalists and effective altruists who are dedicated to spreading rationality to a broad audience.
2) If I see InIn content as not having a positive impact on a broad audience.
However:
1) There is clear evidence that a number of rationalists and EAs are supporting InIn, which is why my current estimate of this project having support from some members of these communities.
2) There is clear evidence of InIn having a positive impact on at least some members of a broad audience.
The annual report, which you read describes both of these.
Really? Which evidence? All I've seen so far is reports of, basically, impressions (eyeballs/clicks). Do you have evidence of actual positive impact?
See pages 13 and 14 of this document.
/rolls eyes
So if I convince a guy I know that he should finally junk his old car and get something that doesn't break down all the time, do I also get to brag about having clear evidence that I made a "positive impact on at least some members of a broad audience"?
If that is an example from a series of workshops you ran, sure :-) That's the kind of case study story that CFAR uses, after all, except they target elites who make decisions within their own lives/companies that address the kind of sunken cost fallacy this exemplifies.