When you shouldn't use EA jargon and how to avoid it

I usually find these "lists of jargon + replacements" quite bad (i.e. include many things where the distinction between the term used and the suggested replacement is important and useful, and/or seem to misunderstand the terms they're suggesting replacements for, and/or include many things that virtually nobody says except maybe as a joke).

But I think this one is pretty good and mostly agree with it.

Hmm... often I think it is nice to have a standard term for a phenomenon so that people don't have to figure out how to express a certain concept each time and then hope that everyone else can follow. Language also has the advantage that insofar as we convince people to adopt our language, we draw them into our worldview.

One bad rationalization that I notice myself having sometimes for writing and speaking with "high" jargon is that I say to myself that it's a piece of jargon worth knowing, so I'm actually helping people learn better ways of communicating. I don't think that this is a valid logical conclusion, but instead I can briefly explain some relevant and important terminology or avoid using that if it's not relevant.

I think that my actual motivations are mainly that I feel a need to be very accurate, and that writing is generally slow and tedious for me so it is difficult for me to find better ways of articulating myself once I have already found something that fits what I have in mind. Or - anxiousness and laziness. 

Just some stuff that I notice in myself which might be worth sharing :)

I agree with this post relatively strongly. As someone relatively new to the EA scene, I found the jargon and language quite off-putting and would result in annoyance/feeling like an idiot plus some Googling later on. I'm unsure why we can't just say "What would have happened otherwise" rather than "Counterfactual". I personally try and play down this language as much as possible, especially around people newer to EA because I know the effect it had on me.

I think this post plays into a stronger point that certain aspects of the EA community actually are unwelcoming. Or rather it feels a bit like a secret club with a high bar to entry at times and there is almost certainly an intellectual elitism feel to EA occasionally (see in-group + tribalism). I think that descending further and further into niche phrases, elitism and not keeping the message as open to as many people as is not the right way to go.

 I'm strongly in favour of making EA as widespread and as broad as possible. Sure it might dilute job applications or have a few other unthought of negative side effects. But imagine having thousands of more people earning to give for example or contributing their ideas and insight into EA. I wonder how many people have turned away from EA because of Elitism, Jargon or feeling unwelcome? that doesn't feel very EA to me!

Footnote: I realise this comment might come off as a bit bitter. Contrary to that, I really love the EA community and think it has enhanced my life so much in so many ways, this is just one aspect that I think could be improved somewhat - The onboarding of new and potential EAs!

Sometimes I catch myself using jargon even knowing it's a bad communication strategy, because I just like feeling clever, or signaling that I'm an insider, or obscuring my ideas so people can't challenge them. OP says these are "naughty reasons to use jargon" (slide 9), but I think that in some cases they fulfill some real social need for people, and if these motivations are still there, we need better ways to satisfy them.

Some ideas:

• Instead of associating jargon with cleverness, mentally reframe things. Someone who uses jargon isn't necessarily clever, especially if they're misusing it. Feynman said "If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it", so pat yourself on the back for translating something into straightforward language when appropriate.
• Instead of using jargon to feel connected to the in-group, build a group identity that doesn't rely on jargon. I'm not really sure how to do this.
• Instead of using jargon to prevent people from understanding your ideas to challenge them, keep your identity small so you don't feel personally attacked when being challenged. When you have low confidence in a belief, qualify them with an "I think" or "I have a lot of confusing intuitions here, but..."
  • Perhaps also doing exposure therapy to practice losing debates without feeling like you've been slapped down
  • This is actually one of the reasons I like the "epistemic status" header; it helps me qualify my statements much more efficiently. From now one I'll be dropping the "epistemic status" terminology but keeping the header.

I'm sure there are more and better ideas in this direction.

"funging against" -> "cannibalising"

I currently have two polls on whether my posts have too much or too little jargon, one on Twitter and one on Facebook, phrased this way (Twitter poll is public and anonymous, Facebook is not):

Speaking for your own interests and ease of understanding, should I use more or less jargon on {Twitter, Facebook}?

1. more jargon
2. less jargon
3. about the same
4. I just wanna see results!

Before clicking ahead to them, I'd like other commentators with a (strong) opinion to offer a prediction for what people voted for in the above survey questions. I'd also like them to form an opinion on how a (hypothetical) poll on a more prominent EA figure (eg Robert Wiblin, Greg Lewis, Anna Salamon etc) will resolve.

Facebook, Twitter

"Deeply understand" lacks the connotations from Stranger in a Strange Land.

I agree we should try using accessible language (when it doesn't compromise our message). It makes our ideas more easily spread to people from various backgrounds (e.g. not just tech people), non-native English speakers, younger people, etc.

I think it'd be great if more EA orgs made this an official part of their style guides/voice guidelines/similar. Was just thinking about this again when I was reading an 80k piece (https://80000hours.org/2023/05/moderation-in-doing-good/) that used the term "sandboxes", when "test environment" is probably clearer to a wider audience.

Great presentation! I wish you luck.

By the way, I get tired of saying "impact" since it's cited as a buzzword that people should avoid, especially in business. Do you recommend any synonyms for "impact" (as either a noun or a verb)?