2 ms·
Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"? In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually m
by stared 11y ago
Is it only me, who would prefer to have the phrase "efficient altruists" rather than "effective altruists"?
In the context of sciences, "effective X" usually means "something that is not X, but in the effect acts as X" (e.g. "effective potential"). So, I when I first met the phrase "effective altruism" I was thinking it is something in the line of Ayn Rand or so - that we should be egoistic, but (some) egoistic behaviours are effectively altruistic. While "how to do as much X given fixed amount of resources?" is talking about being "efficient".
- vog 11y agoTo my understanding, "effective" also means to have an impact, while "efficient" focuses more on the ratio impact/resources. In that way, I find the wording "effective" better suited. It means the maximum impact given your resources, while for "efficient" it would be okay to have 80% of the effect if you get that for just 70% of your resources.
- stared 11y agoI understand that "effective" has also this meaning. But, as I pointed out, is ambiguous, with the "default" meaning being very different (not just subtly) from the intended one. Especially as, in evolutionary biology, and game theory, there is a big topic of investigating how egoistic behaviour may give raise to an altruistic effect. (And of course, the main thing is that adjectives created from nouns are very ambiguous, i.e. effective can mean both "altruism that gives effect" or "altruism that is an effect".)