The portion regarding the norms in EA communities argumentation habits is the most weighty part of the analysis. The EMH example is a supporting detail.
The thesis is this: EA communities are prone to insularity, hubris, and fabulism covered with a paper thin veneer of logic. The insularity generally means their arguments have not been subjected to even trivial scrutiny from non-EA communities. As a result, their arguments should as a first approximation be given no more weight than the average Reddit thread.
To be logically complete it would need to collect a variety of examples of hubris, fabulism, and insularity from EA arguments, which is left as an exercise to the reader.
Rhetorical fallacies are important to understand if you’re going to call them out. “Ad hominem” means attacking the argument by attacking the person.
Here I am attacking the general credibility of a community of people based on the example of one of their members’ arguments.
This is common in communities that are devoted to radical honesty and radical transparency, particularly those that actually have to hold these norms in high stakes market scenarios. It is called “believability weighting.”
For example, if the Norway Government Pension Fund historically provides poor logical arguments in their analysis of EU recessions, their arguments about EU recessions should be given less weight in the future.
Believability weighting is not the same as ad hominem.