8 ms·

There is a need to decouple "Effective Altruism (TM)" the culty organization, from the underlying ideas of effective altruism. Personally, I'd describe the cor

There is a need to decouple "Effective Altruism (TM)" the culty organization, from the underlying ideas of effective altruism. Personally, I'd describe the core as donate regularly, and donate with your brain not your heart - consider the ROI, and reflect on how personal income is otherwise being spent to decide a recurring donation amount. At the same time, imo there's no need to go 100% utilitarian and overoptimize, overthink, or blindly trust someone else's QlYs calculations... Perfection is the enemy of good enough. I read one of the EA books, did my own research over a few days to pick my causes, and now just do a yearly review after every tax season. I'm happy with it. Never even read a tweet from William or the fancy organization. Some examples lines of thought * kids with cancer feels very bad/sad, but still maybe rethink donating to the organization with $7B in the bank and $2B in yearly income that just saves the ~8,000 easiest cases (St Jude)... * perhaps consider non-charitable donations to political organizations, given the impact of government policies. * When donating to research, consider the time discount and uncertainty. The research might save more in the future if it pans out, but it might not and you might be dead before any gains. Some people can be saved today.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tech_ken 3y ago
> And perhaps consider non-charitable donations to political organizations, given the impact of government policies. This part gets wayyyyy underplayed in EA [0]. So many charities and nonprofits exist to resolve problems that are the result of policy decisions, and ceding that ground by focusing entirely on which to donate too is a losing battle from the start. For example, people being unable to afford life-saving medical care shouldn't be something that religious-affiliate groups even need to exist to resolve, it's a problem with how we've structured our economy overall. [0] edit: or not, see comment below!
- civilitty 3y ago
  People also significantly overestimate the amount of money required to make an impact. If it’s not a contentious issue like abortion, a little money to send some advocates (not expensive lobbyists but nonprofit volunteers) to DC or state capitols several times to regularly press the flesh with representatives goes a long way. People have just gotten too cynical thanks to the culture wars and partisanship.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    I think a big blocker here is that it's takes a lot of time and interpersonal connection to get people on board with a political plan. EA types want to be able to spend/design/research your way to a solution (I derogatively think of this as "Magic the Gathering politics"), but sometimes all that's required is to knock on 20 neighbors' doors and let them know about an upcoming vote they might be interested in, and having a strong enough relationship with them that they might listen. Someone like SBF does not seem like the type to have an authentic, positive connection with the people living in physical space near him.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      >Someone like SBF does not seem like the type to have an authentic, positive connection with the people living in physical space near him Conversely, if you strip away all the FTX crypto hate and eat the rich sentiment, I actually find SBF quite charming and persuasive. I loved the interview he did with Matt lavine, and thought he was a clear and effective communicator. He probably could have gone far in politics if he didn't go into finance and if he wasnt ugly.
      - tech_ken 3y ago
        Interesting point. I guess on one level I feel like giving a good interview isn't really indicative of someone's actual character, the kind of political movement building I'm thinking of is a somewhat different skillset than just "presents well on screen" (though they can overlap!). With that said, presenting well on screen does help when you're running for office so he maybe could have gone far with that as you say. However as to whether he would have actually been a good and prudent public servant once in office seems unlikely to me, given his financial misdeeds and the narcissism that seems to be coming through all the post-hoc analysis.
      - jrumbut 3y ago
        > thought he was a clear and effective communicator He would not have come off that way if he hadn't severed the connection between what he was saying and the truth. Any dinner theater actor can give a good speech, it's giving a good speech without ignoring the messiness of reality that's difficult. If he had been a clear and effective communicator while describing using customer funds to buy houses and pay debts then he might have become president.
- metalcrow 3y ago
  It really does not. A tooon of EA discussion is about political activism, and 80,000 hours even recommends going into politics as a major high-impact career.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the correction!
  - henryaj 3y ago
    To say nothing of all the policy/civil servant EAs out there!
didibus 3y ago
I think you can question the efficiency and ethics of a system where wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities, instead of being managed in a more collective or systematic way that might address social issues more directly or equitably. Should wealthy individuals that have often accumulated wealth at the detriment of others be the power that decides which causes are worthy of support, based on their personal preferences? It seems it could be better to develop a system where resources might be distributed in a more equitable or communal manner from the outset, reducing the need for later redistribution through individualized philanthropy and ideologies like effective altruism.
- waveBidder 3y ago
  This is one of those yes and kind of points. Talking about The Revolution doesn't put food on people's plates.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- digital-cygnet 3y ago
  I think this is exactly what the GP means when they discuss donating to political causes. If you can donate your $100 to buy a week's worth of food for a family in need, or donate it to a political campaign that credibly promises to end hunger in your country, it's not immediately obvious which is more effective (but the latter tends to be discounted by EA types, especially early in the history of the movement). Perhaps the most effective altruism of all is that which makes Effective Altruism (TM) redundant.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  So, communism? Or something else along those same lines? This is not a new argument. > more equitable or communal manner Who, exactly, are we empowering to make that decision?
  - didibus 3y ago
    > So, communism No, that would be another instance of a similar pattern of "pool all the money and put it in the hand of a select few that gets to decide if, where and how to redistribute it". I'm talking of a system that wouldn't first accumulate maximum wealth, and then have a select few decide where to distribute it. I'm not sure what system can best achieve this, but it does feel like it be better to have a system that's designed to make it so money is distributed more evenly from the outset, and where distribution decisions are done more communally.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
>At the same time, imo there's no need to go 100% utilitarian and over optimize. Exactly. Paraphrasing Economist Mike Munger when interviewing EA advocates: "I'm very interested in the scientific rigor of EA, but I'm still going to buy my children birthday presents"
- ryanklee 3y ago
  This doesn't even look like a failure to fully optimize on a utilitarian basis when you begin to account for the psychology damage done to persons when their expectations, desires, and happiness are sacrificed for non-proximal greater goods. People you love need your love. If you don't give it to them -- and sometimes the means of expressing affection is material, like gifts -- then they suffer. And if they suffer out of principle and that principle is universally applied, then you've created a whole lot of tragic, self-perpetuating suffering. That does the world no good and it's arguably worse than passively allowing for the death of someone or many someones that you'll never meet. The reason being is that if you perpetuate suffering in your children or your loved ones, they have a good chance of become either monsters or crippled. Either way, they will be poor custodians of the future.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Indeed. I think it is valuable to think deeply about efficacy for what you have decided to contribute towards non-proximal goods. It is probably also worthwhile to think about contributing more to non-proximal goods. The part that fails is the utilitarian philosophy itself. Most people dont actually believe utility or happiness to fungible in practice. Similarly, most people find the natural conclusions that arise from utilitarianism to be repugnant.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tech_ken 3y ago

> And perhaps consider non-charitable donations to political organizations, given the impact of government policies. This part gets wayyyyy underplayed in EA [0]. So many charities and nonprofits exist to resolve problems that are the result of policy decisions, and ceding that ground by focusing entirely on which to donate too is a losing battle from the start. For example, people being unable to afford life-saving medical care shouldn't be something that religious-affiliate groups even need to exist to resolve, it's a problem with how we've structured our economy overall. [0] edit: or not, see comment below!

civilitty 3y ago
People also significantly overestimate the amount of money required to make an impact. If it’s not a contentious issue like abortion, a little money to send some advocates (not expensive lobbyists but nonprofit volunteers) to DC or state capitols several times to regularly press the flesh with representatives goes a long way. People have just gotten too cynical thanks to the culture wars and partisanship.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  I think a big blocker here is that it's takes a lot of time and interpersonal connection to get people on board with a political plan. EA types want to be able to spend/design/research your way to a solution (I derogatively think of this as "Magic the Gathering politics"), but sometimes all that's required is to knock on 20 neighbors' doors and let them know about an upcoming vote they might be interested in, and having a strong enough relationship with them that they might listen. Someone like SBF does not seem like the type to have an authentic, positive connection with the people living in physical space near him.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >Someone like SBF does not seem like the type to have an authentic, positive connection with the people living in physical space near him Conversely, if you strip away all the FTX crypto hate and eat the rich sentiment, I actually find SBF quite charming and persuasive. I loved the interview he did with Matt lavine, and thought he was a clear and effective communicator. He probably could have gone far in politics if he didn't go into finance and if he wasnt ugly.
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      Interesting point. I guess on one level I feel like giving a good interview isn't really indicative of someone's actual character, the kind of political movement building I'm thinking of is a somewhat different skillset than just "presents well on screen" (though they can overlap!). With that said, presenting well on screen does help when you're running for office so he maybe could have gone far with that as you say. However as to whether he would have actually been a good and prudent public servant once in office seems unlikely to me, given his financial misdeeds and the narcissism that seems to be coming through all the post-hoc analysis.
    - jrumbut 3y ago
      > thought he was a clear and effective communicator He would not have come off that way if he hadn't severed the connection between what he was saying and the truth. Any dinner theater actor can give a good speech, it's giving a good speech without ignoring the messiness of reality that's difficult. If he had been a clear and effective communicator while describing using customer funds to buy houses and pay debts then he might have become president.
metalcrow 3y ago
It really does not. A tooon of EA discussion is about political activism, and 80,000 hours even recommends going into politics as a major high-impact career.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the correction!
- henryaj 3y ago
  To say nothing of all the policy/civil servant EAs out there!

didibus 3y ago

I think you can question the efficiency and ethics of a system where wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities, instead of being managed in a more collective or systematic way that might address social issues more directly or equitably. Should wealthy individuals that have often accumulated wealth at the detriment of others be the power that decides which causes are worthy of support, based on their personal preferences? It seems it could be better to develop a system where resources might be distributed in a more equitable or communal manner from the outset, reducing the need for later redistribution through individualized philanthropy and ideologies like effective altruism.

waveBidder 3y ago
This is one of those yes and kind of points. Talking about The Revolution doesn't put food on people's plates.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
digital-cygnet 3y ago
I think this is exactly what the GP means when they discuss donating to political causes. If you can donate your $100 to buy a week's worth of food for a family in need, or donate it to a political campaign that credibly promises to end hunger in your country, it's not immediately obvious which is more effective (but the latter tends to be discounted by EA types, especially early in the history of the movement). Perhaps the most effective altruism of all is that which makes Effective Altruism (TM) redundant.
rootusrootus 3y ago
So, communism? Or something else along those same lines? This is not a new argument. > more equitable or communal manner Who, exactly, are we empowering to make that decision?
- didibus 3y ago
  > So, communism No, that would be another instance of a similar pattern of "pool all the money and put it in the hand of a select few that gets to decide if, where and how to redistribute it". I'm talking of a system that wouldn't first accumulate maximum wealth, and then have a select few decide where to distribute it. I'm not sure what system can best achieve this, but it does feel like it be better to have a system that's designed to make it so money is distributed more evenly from the outset, and where distribution decisions are done more communally.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>At the same time, imo there's no need to go 100% utilitarian and over optimize. Exactly. Paraphrasing Economist Mike Munger when interviewing EA advocates: "I'm very interested in the scientific rigor of EA, but I'm still going to buy my children birthday presents"

ryanklee 3y ago
This doesn't even look like a failure to fully optimize on a utilitarian basis when you begin to account for the psychology damage done to persons when their expectations, desires, and happiness are sacrificed for non-proximal greater goods. People you love need your love. If you don't give it to them -- and sometimes the means of expressing affection is material, like gifts -- then they suffer. And if they suffer out of principle and that principle is universally applied, then you've created a whole lot of tragic, self-perpetuating suffering. That does the world no good and it's arguably worse than passively allowing for the death of someone or many someones that you'll never meet. The reason being is that if you perpetuate suffering in your children or your loved ones, they have a good chance of become either monsters or crippled. Either way, they will be poor custodians of the future.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Indeed. I think it is valuable to think deeply about efficacy for what you have decided to contribute towards non-proximal goods. It is probably also worthwhile to think about contributing more to non-proximal goods. The part that fails is the utilitarian philosophy itself. Most people dont actually believe utility or happiness to fungible in practice. Similarly, most people find the natural conclusions that arise from utilitarianism to be repugnant.