4 ms·

My problem with EA, closely related to the points expressed by the author of this article, has always been this magical insistence on altruistic organizations t

My problem with EA, closely related to the points expressed by the author of this article, has always been this magical insistence on altruistic organizations that are both: 1. Extant outside the individual (e.g. "you", the reader, are not in an altruistic organization, but _somebody_ out there is, it's just not "you", so where is that somebody, and if it's not you, why do we always assume there will be a somebody) and 2. Assumed to be more efficient than the individual joining the altruistic organization. Somehow the cap on good you can do is limited to marginal income, not about joining an organization and actually attempting to move the cause forward (whether through managerial efficiency, STEM work, or more). Sure if the choice is between doing nothing at all and donating marginal income, it should be obvious that donating marginal income helps. But that is simply drawing a trivial comparison between doing nothing and doing a very little bit .

skybrian 6y ago
Yes, asking the question “where should I donate money” limits scope, but it’s still an important question. It’s also easier to answer than job placement or new charity incubation, which depend a lot more on the individual. There are plenty of important questions in life that nobody can answer unless they know you well.
greenshackle2 6y ago
Err, that's exactly what 80,000 hours, the EA career advice organization, recommends. The recommendation to pursue a high-earning career is last, they recommended pursuing research, policy, and joining altruistic organizations ahead of that. You have to adjust the message to the audience though, 80,000 hours is aimed at college students and young grads, it doesn't make as much sense to emphasize these things if you're talking to a late career software engineer. I think the EA advice regarding donations is more of a common lower denominator sort of thing. Not everyone can do research and policy work, but a lot of people have at least some disposable income. The author of this article seems only aware of GiveWell and Giving What We Can, there's other EA orgs doing things beyond advocating for charitable giving.
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  > I think the EA advice regarding donations is more of a common lower denominator sort of thing. Not everyone can do research and policy work, but a lot of people have at least some disposable income. I think this is where my opprobrium lies. A surprising amount of charitable work is very similar to the standard, non-charitable work folks do for themselves. It's about managing logistics, managing organizations of people, and tracking and accounting for donations. Actual on-the-ground work (like distribution of materials or soup kitchen work) and high-level research and policy work is a minority of the work to be done. Much like a corporation, most of the work lies in middle management, and this much is obvious if you've ever spent a long stint volunteering for an organization. And then there's the idea that one may actually discover that they are better at the kind of work involved in charitable work than they thought, since most charitable work in individualist Western countries has very little public information associated. This is what I want to challenge among EA believers; much like a market with imperfect information, alignment with charitable work may also be a case of imperfect information.
Uehreka 6y ago
I agree with you in that this aspect of EA has sometimes rubbed me the wrong way. I do see how EA writers get there though: Statistically, it's very unlikely that you will be the first person to hear about a particular initiative or cause. Given that a lot of EA people follow similar media (some of which is focused specifically on evaluating the best up-and-coming EA opportunities), the moment that an organization gets written up as a credible and good opportunity, they will immediately have more volunteers than they will have posts for. So the experience of the median Effective Altruist is one of wanting to do good, but finding out that they're the 200th person calling to volunteer at an organization that really only needs 10 data-entry folks and 1 sysadmin. So with that in mind, a lot of EA writing focuses on setting expectations: You probably won't get to be directly involved, but here are other ways you can help that might not feel as vindicating, but do do actual good. I think part of the reason the writing is oriented this way, is an expectation that there will always be a glut of hardcore volunteers who will call and volunteer even if you tell them not to. Those people don't need convincing, but the people who do need convincing are the ones who might drop out if they find they aren't going to be on the front lines. Those are the people who need instructions on what their best role will be. You may think that sounds patronizing; it really kind of is. But I think the more interesting question is if it's Effective, and it might be.
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  > I think part of the reason the writing is oriented this way, is an expectation that there will always be a glut of hardcore volunteers who will call and volunteer even if you tell them not to. Those people don't need convincing, but the people who do need convincing are the ones who might drop out if they find they aren't going to be on the front lines. The thing is, at least based on my own experience in volunteering organizations, that this core of hardcore volunteers is a lot smaller than the actual number of volunteers needed. Once we actively discourage the more casual volunteers from directly attempting to help or organize, you end up actually making charity organizations less effective. I don't have the data to back this up, but this is my feeling. A little bit of guilt can often be enough motivation to help an individual realize that they are in fact very good at helping run a charitable organization.
Robotbeat 6y ago
If you’re not particularly skilled in the things that organization needs, then it may well be better just to donate it. Charitable organizations often have more volunteers or people who work for them than they have donations to leverage for their goal. More volunteers at a well-manned food bank isn’t going to help if the food bank doesn’t have enough food to give out. I think a lot of people who do work at charities (like you suggest) would agree with this.
lmm 6y ago
> 2. Assumed to be more efficient than the individual joining the altruistic organization. Somehow the cap on good you can do is limited to marginal income, not about joining an organization and actually attempting to move the cause forward (whether through managerial efficiency, STEM work, or more). In most fields of endeavour markets and specialisation work better than trying to do something yourself. If someone wants a boat, they can build their own boat, and they might find this fulfilling, but if they want a good boat they'd generally be much better off working to earn money and buying a boat with that money rather than building the boat themselves. (And if they're actually the rare person who's skills are more suited to boat building than any other field of endeavour, then the best-paying job they end up getting will be in boat-building).
- Karrot_Kream 6y ago
  How do you know this? The usual market assumptions involve perfect knowledge and efficient market clearing. It’s unclear to me that charitable initiatives have anything even close to perfect information, and the labor market is famous for being inefficient, especially given that careers are driven by many inelastic factors, and are often driven by Veblenian effects more than actual efficiency. Sure, assuming a perfect market, this would be true, but I’d argue that charity labor is specifically a case where markets are far from perfect. There’s a reason most capitalist governments offer so many tax incentives for charitable firms.
  - Tyr42 6y ago
    Honesty if you make a good case for it being more effective, go for it. I'm happy that someone has done the research on if I want to donate, where does it do the most good however.
    - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
      Actually, I'd urge you to actually do something about it instead. Find a local cause that resonates with you or a disadvantaged population that you would like to assist and get involved. Skin in the game and all that ;)

skybrian 6y ago

Yes, asking the question “where should I donate money” limits scope, but it’s still an important question. It’s also easier to answer than job placement or new charity incubation, which depend a lot more on the individual. There are plenty of important questions in life that nobody can answer unless they know you well.

greenshackle2 6y ago

Err, that's exactly what 80,000 hours, the EA career advice organization, recommends. The recommendation to pursue a high-earning career is last, they recommended pursuing research, policy, and joining altruistic organizations ahead of that. You have to adjust the message to the audience though, 80,000 hours is aimed at college students and young grads, it doesn't make as much sense to emphasize these things if you're talking to a late career software engineer. I think the EA advice regarding donations is more of a common lower denominator sort of thing. Not everyone can do research and policy work, but a lot of people have at least some disposable income. The author of this article seems only aware of GiveWell and Giving What We Can, there's other EA orgs doing things beyond advocating for charitable giving.

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
> I think the EA advice regarding donations is more of a common lower denominator sort of thing. Not everyone can do research and policy work, but a lot of people have at least some disposable income. I think this is where my opprobrium lies. A surprising amount of charitable work is very similar to the standard, non-charitable work folks do for themselves. It's about managing logistics, managing organizations of people, and tracking and accounting for donations. Actual on-the-ground work (like distribution of materials or soup kitchen work) and high-level research and policy work is a minority of the work to be done. Much like a corporation, most of the work lies in middle management, and this much is obvious if you've ever spent a long stint volunteering for an organization. And then there's the idea that one may actually discover that they are better at the kind of work involved in charitable work than they thought, since most charitable work in individualist Western countries has very little public information associated. This is what I want to challenge among EA believers; much like a market with imperfect information, alignment with charitable work may also be a case of imperfect information.

Uehreka 6y ago

I agree with you in that this aspect of EA has sometimes rubbed me the wrong way. I do see how EA writers get there though: Statistically, it's very unlikely that you will be the first person to hear about a particular initiative or cause. Given that a lot of EA people follow similar media (some of which is focused specifically on evaluating the best up-and-coming EA opportunities), the moment that an organization gets written up as a credible and good opportunity, they will immediately have more volunteers than they will have posts for. So the experience of the median Effective Altruist is one of wanting to do good, but finding out that they're the 200th person calling to volunteer at an organization that really only needs 10 data-entry folks and 1 sysadmin. So with that in mind, a lot of EA writing focuses on setting expectations: You probably won't get to be directly involved, but here are other ways you can help that might not feel as vindicating, but do do actual good. I think part of the reason the writing is oriented this way, is an expectation that there will always be a glut of hardcore volunteers who will call and volunteer even if you tell them not to. Those people don't need convincing, but the people who do need convincing are the ones who might drop out if they find they aren't going to be on the front lines. Those are the people who need instructions on what their best role will be. You may think that sounds patronizing; it really kind of is. But I think the more interesting question is if it's Effective, and it might be.

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
> I think part of the reason the writing is oriented this way, is an expectation that there will always be a glut of hardcore volunteers who will call and volunteer even if you tell them not to. Those people don't need convincing, but the people who do need convincing are the ones who might drop out if they find they aren't going to be on the front lines. The thing is, at least based on my own experience in volunteering organizations, that this core of hardcore volunteers is a lot smaller than the actual number of volunteers needed. Once we actively discourage the more casual volunteers from directly attempting to help or organize, you end up actually making charity organizations less effective. I don't have the data to back this up, but this is my feeling. A little bit of guilt can often be enough motivation to help an individual realize that they are in fact very good at helping run a charitable organization.

Robotbeat 6y ago

If you’re not particularly skilled in the things that organization needs, then it may well be better just to donate it. Charitable organizations often have more volunteers or people who work for them than they have donations to leverage for their goal. More volunteers at a well-manned food bank isn’t going to help if the food bank doesn’t have enough food to give out. I think a lot of people who do work at charities (like you suggest) would agree with this.

lmm 6y ago

> 2. Assumed to be more efficient than the individual joining the altruistic organization. Somehow the cap on good you can do is limited to marginal income, not about joining an organization and actually attempting to move the cause forward (whether through managerial efficiency, STEM work, or more). In most fields of endeavour markets and specialisation work better than trying to do something yourself. If someone wants a boat, they can build their own boat, and they might find this fulfilling, but if they want a good boat they'd generally be much better off working to earn money and buying a boat with that money rather than building the boat themselves. (And if they're actually the rare person who's skills are more suited to boat building than any other field of endeavour, then the best-paying job they end up getting will be in boat-building).

Karrot_Kream 6y ago
How do you know this? The usual market assumptions involve perfect knowledge and efficient market clearing. It’s unclear to me that charitable initiatives have anything even close to perfect information, and the labor market is famous for being inefficient, especially given that careers are driven by many inelastic factors, and are often driven by Veblenian effects more than actual efficiency. Sure, assuming a perfect market, this would be true, but I’d argue that charity labor is specifically a case where markets are far from perfect. There’s a reason most capitalist governments offer so many tax incentives for charitable firms.
- Tyr42 6y ago
  Honesty if you make a good case for it being more effective, go for it. I'm happy that someone has done the research on if I want to donate, where does it do the most good however.
  - Karrot_Kream 6y ago
    Actually, I'd urge you to actually do something about it instead. Find a local cause that resonates with you or a disadvantaged population that you would like to assist and get involved. Skin in the game and all that ;)