2 ms·

As someone in the "malaria nets wing", I think you're directionally correct, but overstating things. > it's quite obvious that the opinionated people who contr

• matthewdgreen 3y ago
  Like I said, I don’t think EA is bad or that the situation is irreparable. I just think there are people within “the movement” who are taking it in a worrying direction. And by “taking it” I don’t mean they’ll brainwash everyone in the org, but I do believe they might succeed in capturing the EA brand and a lot of its organizational capacity towards their priorities. I think in the medium/long term, the Givewell wing of the EA movement will either need to (1) develop better organizational strategies to defend against this kind of takeover and keep priorities balanced, or (2) consider breaking off from the rest of the EA movement and recognizing that the brand now means something different. But that new movement will also need to develop some defenses to prevent the same thing from happening. To use an excellent rationalist phrase: there’s a “Chesterton’s fence” that I think a lot of EA folks have torn down in their attempt to refactor charity and make it more efficient: namely, that the intentions of leadership really matter. And in any human organization that manages large sums of money and power, you have to have sharply-enforced defenses against charismatic leaders who say they’re your friends and share your priorities, but actually want to take the movement in a very different direction.
  • nyssos 3y ago
    > consider breaking off from the rest of the EA movement and recognizing that the brand now means something different. Yes, this seems fairly likely to happen. > the intentions of leadership really matter. And in any human organization that manages large sums of money and power, you have to have sharply-enforced defenses against charismatic leaders who say they’re your friends and share your priorities, but actually want to take the movement in a very different direction. I don't think this is exactly the issue. Openphil's leadership is, as far as I can tell, sincerely not trying to dominate the movement. The problem is that they're such an important funding source for charities that they can't not do so: even if they would never actually withdraw funding to punish people, the mere fact that they could creates a chilling effect. In principle the same dynamic could apply to GiveWell and global health charities, it's just that there aren't the same sorts of deep ideological differences there: e.g. maybe Alice thinks parasitic worms are the most important problem, and Bob thinks it's malaria, but they're always going to agree that both are extremely bad and should get significant funding.
    • matthewdgreen 3y ago
      I think the notion of “sincerity” should be viewed very skeptically here. Not because I believe you’re wrong about anyone’s intentions: but because intentions don’t matter. If I sincerely believe issue A is the most important issue in the field, and I sincerely believe my “obtain donor funds at all costs” strategy is the best strategy to pursue it, then I can end up dominating the movement without ever intending to do so. It takes a strong and explicit effort to prevent this from happening, and that defense won’t happen if everyone is more concerned about being amicable than about vociferously defending the mission. And of course, once one branch of the movement dominates it, then you’re at the mercy of their continued sincerity. This means you have to assume they’ll always continue to behave sincerely, and their organization won’t be captured by opportunists in the future.