I think tipping is bad, but I still tip when expected, because… what’s the point? Probably most social norms are like that—even if we disagree with them, they’re too entrenched to change. That’s why it’s important to watch for critical points where norms could go either way.
The comments come out pretty heavily in favor of "run posts by orgs before criticizing them". Criticizing an org's activities is not exactly the same thing as criticizing someone's argument so maybe it's a different situation. I am not sure what to think.
I think I mostly disagree with the comments. I think the OP gave relatively weak reasons to not run their post by the org. In fact, I'm not sure I even agree with some of them. But I think the commentators are missing the most important factor which is that more reviews = more truth = good, and I think this swamps all factors. They're so worried about putting an unreasonable burden on the charities, but no one is worried about putting a burden on the people doing the reviews, and it IS a major burden. (I say as someone who's tried it many times.)
I also think they overrate the issue that an incorrect *high quality* criticism will do some kind of permanent reputational harm to a charity. Say your post is fair and signals uncertainty. Do we really have so little faith in people that a single post that has a strong rebuttal will permanently turn off all donors forever?
And when the charity publishes their rebuttal, that might do reputational damage to the person writing their critique. Should THEY have to run that past THEM?
I know the old "lies can go around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes" (and I've experienced it myself many times on this blog, when someone might post a completely bogus criticism of one of my posts and it becomes very popular). But any of those people could have stopped most of the problem by being willing to engage with my response.
If the presence of people who might do criticism of a charity without offering a chance for feedback would cause that charity to preemptively hide data or not do an analysis, that seems bad. But I still get a very "ick" feeling about the idea that this is how charities would respond. This kind of analysis is hard. It seems like what we want is an open, long-term conversation with many participants. But I see where this response is coming from in terms of how real people will act given the world as it is.
> If the presence of people who might do criticism of a charity without offering a chance for feedback would cause that charity to preemptively hide data or not do an analysis, that seems bad.
I would guess 75%+ of preemptive opaqueness would be triggered by critics being rude.
Quoting the comment you linked:
> On the other hand, anonymous, scathing reviews make us less likely to publish anything at all.
I think "scathing" is an important lever here. You can keep charities more open to criticism by being polite.
Although to be fair, polite criticism is hard. I work pretty hard at it and I still fail often.
Yeah, agreed. I think these norms have a pretty limited scope. They probably only work for writing and for people who are generous enough in interpreting others that they would be worried about being rude. (Maybe this happens in some places on youtube as well? I'm not sure...) Most discourse in most places is pretty adversarial and would probably be improved by going in the other direction.
I think the high school problem you mention at the end is kind of self-limiting because it would be embarrassing for the NYT to go after a high school student.
I would be interested in hearing your take on the comments on this post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KnJBoRcWdCmnnmq74/request-for-guidance-reaching-out-to-charities-before
The comments come out pretty heavily in favor of "run posts by orgs before criticizing them". Criticizing an org's activities is not exactly the same thing as criticizing someone's argument so maybe it's a different situation. I am not sure what to think.
I think I mostly disagree with the comments. I think the OP gave relatively weak reasons to not run their post by the org. In fact, I'm not sure I even agree with some of them. But I think the commentators are missing the most important factor which is that more reviews = more truth = good, and I think this swamps all factors. They're so worried about putting an unreasonable burden on the charities, but no one is worried about putting a burden on the people doing the reviews, and it IS a major burden. (I say as someone who's tried it many times.)
I also think they overrate the issue that an incorrect *high quality* criticism will do some kind of permanent reputational harm to a charity. Say your post is fair and signals uncertainty. Do we really have so little faith in people that a single post that has a strong rebuttal will permanently turn off all donors forever?
And when the charity publishes their rebuttal, that might do reputational damage to the person writing their critique. Should THEY have to run that past THEM?
I know the old "lies can go around the world while the truth is putting on it's shoes" (and I've experienced it myself many times on this blog, when someone might post a completely bogus criticism of one of my posts and it becomes very popular). But any of those people could have stopped most of the problem by being willing to engage with my response.
Looking at these a bit more, this response gives me some pause: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KnJBoRcWdCmnnmq74/request-for-guidance-reaching-out-to-charities-before?commentId=sBb44YsAPBRQApveA
If the presence of people who might do criticism of a charity without offering a chance for feedback would cause that charity to preemptively hide data or not do an analysis, that seems bad. But I still get a very "ick" feeling about the idea that this is how charities would respond. This kind of analysis is hard. It seems like what we want is an open, long-term conversation with many participants. But I see where this response is coming from in terms of how real people will act given the world as it is.
> If the presence of people who might do criticism of a charity without offering a chance for feedback would cause that charity to preemptively hide data or not do an analysis, that seems bad.
I would guess 75%+ of preemptive opaqueness would be triggered by critics being rude.
Quoting the comment you linked:
> On the other hand, anonymous, scathing reviews make us less likely to publish anything at all.
I think "scathing" is an important lever here. You can keep charities more open to criticism by being polite.
Although to be fair, polite criticism is hard. I work pretty hard at it and I still fail often.
Thanks for bringing this up, maybe I'll write a response post.
1) Go ahead and criticize whatever you want, with no need for any kind of warning.
2) Try to phrase your criticisms as against the artifact that you think is wrong, rather than against the person who created it.
3) If you’re tempted to complain that someone is criticizing one of your artifacts without talking to you first, that’s lame, don’t do that.
Gonna make a poster of these for my classroom 🥰
It only works for writing, though. Out loud talking is already far too adversarial, so these only apply to genteel essays as you say.
Yeah, agreed. I think these norms have a pretty limited scope. They probably only work for writing and for people who are generous enough in interpreting others that they would be worried about being rude. (Maybe this happens in some places on youtube as well? I'm not sure...) Most discourse in most places is pretty adversarial and would probably be improved by going in the other direction.
I think the high school problem you mention at the end is kind of self-limiting because it would be embarrassing for the NYT to go after a high school student.
Unless the high school student already stirred up some shit in the news. Then suddenly it's open season. Everybody loves to judge.