Yes, I am me.

Well, this isn’t how I wanted to start my engagement with the EA community. 

I wouldn’t call the efforts of the EA community amateurish; if I said it or implied it, I am wrong. I am actually really happy you exist.

Other things I actually think:

1. The EA community is an important innovation in philanthropy similar to the rise of analytics in sports.  The reference to mosquito nets was not intended to be mocking.  On the contrary, I sincerely understand why someone would prefer to give based on data instead of superstition.  My community finds this uncomfortable for the same reason that dinosaurs don’t like asteroids.
2. A lot of the work I see from the EA community on nuclear issues does leave me cold, but is that an EA problem or a nuclear wonk problem?  I think it’s classic GIGO– garbage in, garbage out. Who is responsible for the garbage inputs? For the most part, that would be us.  We have to provide much better data relevant to the questions of those looking to approach these problems analytically.
3. The idea that people’s eyes glaze over when I talk at cocktail parties was intended to be self-deprecating.  My community is dominated by the obscure and arcane, and kept that way with an absurd amount of gatekeeping. I was trying to say “We’re boring and pedantic and maybe that’s why no one listens to us."

We need to do better – both providing better data and providing data that you need -- but I am slightly freaked out about the size of the gap we need to close.  I want to close that gap and I am kind of bummed if the way I said that in the podcast makes that less likely.  

TL;DR: I don’t think you suck, I think you are poorly served by those of us who make your data.