4 ms·

> Should we assume that everyone who's in movements is in it for cynical reasons? This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. Perhaps we should view facially "altruist

> Should we assume that everyone who's in movements is in it for cynical reasons? This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. Perhaps we should view facially "altruistic" movements much more skeptically. Indeed in hindsight it seems like membership is much more advantageous for virtue signaling than for being more "effective" with your altruism (is it really so hard to figure out who will do the most good with your money?)

gruez 4y ago
>This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. And you refusing to quote the rest of my comment (which contains proposals that aren't "all-or-nothing") is... some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up. >Perhaps we should view facially "altruistic" movements much more skeptically. And how would being more skeptical have helped in this case? The New Yorker article described Bankman-Fried as being involved with EA since his MIT days. He was donating half his salary while working at Jane Street. His charitable activities when he was running FTX is a logical continuation of this. By all reasonable measures at the time, he wasn't doing it for "virtue signaling". >Indeed in hindsight it seems like membership is much more advantageous for virtue signaling than for being more "effective" with your altruism (is it really so hard to figure out who will do the most good with your money?) Is there a reason why effective altruists are being singled out here? Everything you said could be applied to all charitable giving.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up. Is it? I didn't object to the rest of your comment but I don't see how it was relevant either. > He was donating half his salary while working at Jane Street. So do we actually know that he was doing that, or is that just another example of everyone taking him at his word? > Everything you said could be applied to all charitable giving. Most people don't congregate to discuss how charitable they are, so not really.

gruez 4y ago

>This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. And you refusing to quote the rest of my comment (which contains proposals that aren't "all-or-nothing") is... some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up. >Perhaps we should view facially "altruistic" movements much more skeptically. And how would being more skeptical have helped in this case? The New Yorker article described Bankman-Fried as being involved with EA since his MIT days. He was donating half his salary while working at Jane Street. His charitable activities when he was running FTX is a logical continuation of this. By all reasonable measures at the time, he wasn't doing it for "virtue signaling". >Indeed in hindsight it seems like membership is much more advantageous for virtue signaling than for being more "effective" with your altruism (is it really so hard to figure out who will do the most good with your money?) Is there a reason why effective altruists are being singled out here? Everything you said could be applied to all charitable giving.

nwiswell 4y ago
> some sort of fallacy that I'm too lazy to look up. Is it? I didn't object to the rest of your comment but I don't see how it was relevant either. > He was donating half his salary while working at Jane Street. So do we actually know that he was doing that, or is that just another example of everyone taking him at his word? > Everything you said could be applied to all charitable giving. Most people don't congregate to discuss how charitable they are, so not really.