3 ms·

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 t

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.
- solveit 6y ago
  > I don't have the data to back this up Then you're not going to be very convincing. Especially when you're being compared to the EAs.

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.

solveit 6y ago
> I don't have the data to back this up Then you're not going to be very convincing. Especially when you're being compared to the EAs.