4 ms·

Imagine an article: "Our organization found a better light bulb" interpretation 1: (as in the quoted line) Oh, you think you're better than me, and you're crit

Imagine an article: "Our organization found a better light bulb" interpretation 1: (as in the quoted line) Oh, you think you're better than me, and you're criticizing my light bulb? Also you guys are super weird and I am disgusted by you, [other attempts at status-lowering] interpretation 2: hmm, let me look at the data. If that bulb is better, I might use it! If not, maybe there's a way to fix it, or maybe I don't care. No big deal either way. But like, who cares if some nerd philosopher writes an article? If they're wrong, the truth will come out. It's not hurting you. And if they're right, how about reading it and checking if you agree? And we already know social manipulators, psychopaths etc are attracted to intense new social movements. It doesn't mean the movement is bad.

burkaman 3y ago
The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs. You can objectively state that a lightbulb is better because it produces the exact same light with half the electricity, but you can't objectively say that a charity helping children is better than one helping disabled adults, for example. That is a subjective moral decision, and it's fine to discuss it and debate it, but not fine to say "mine is objectively more effective, just look at my quality-adjusted life years spreadsheet". This is not to say that all charity is perfectly interchangeable - for example, you can make very strong arguments that donating to a university with a $50 billion endowment is ineffective. Again there is nothing wrong with discussing these things, you just can't make a blanket statement that your particular philosophical framework is the best one.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  And even lightbulbs have to make tradeoffs between efficiency and lifespan. Yeah, all else being equal the efficient bulb is better, but it's quite rare that all else actually is equal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
- henryaj 3y ago
  > The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs. Often you can. Even charities that are attempting to do the same thing (e.g. stop people dying of malaria) vary wildly in their 'effectiveness' - which is really just a fancy way of saying e.g. 'how many people we prevented dying of malaria per $ spent'. > but not fine to say "mine is objectively more effective, just look at my quality-adjusted life years spreadsheet". ...because? QALYs are an attempt to make these comparisons possible; it's not clear what your objection here actually is.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    QALYs are a legitimate attempt to make these comparisons, but they are not the only method, and there is no way to determine an objectively correct method. It is not objectively true to say that a young life is more valuable than an old life. It isn't wrong, it just isn't objective. It is a subjective personal belief. Again I am not saying that there is no such thing as effectiveness, and I agree that charities doing the exact same thing can be reasonably compared.
- epivosism 3y ago
  I feel your sincerity but I don't know why you're sure of that. I think it is pretty easy to construct situations where one course of action is better than another. For example helping more innocent people vs hardened people with no remorse. Or within the same groups, focusing more on disease eradication against targets which are more harmful vs those diseases which are only small inconveniences. I think EAs might just be trying to apply that same style reasoning to areas which aren't commonly viewed as clear yet. Ie say hey, you may not be familiar with it, but there is some information suggesting that between these two conventional charities, here is an analysis with assumptions laid out that suggests that contributuons may not actually be equivalent! You can still take it or leave it. I don't think they're saying they know everything perfectly. Just that they think it's important to push into the murky areas. I think the issue with blanket statements is on the listener. If I have an idea and somewhat boldly say hey all, I think my idea is better than anything before - and here's why, the "get mad and attack" response, even when sincere and correct, masks so many nonsincere responses. That is, lots of people who claim to be serious analysts frequently use the "attack" response, or the "I'm so tired of this" response. Sometimes that is justified but it's also a crutch and tends to harden battle lines. Personally I'd just figure out if I agree with them (and I don't) and why, and move on. I appreciate you not piling on to them, too.
vladms 3y ago
The article could be interpreted as advertising, if the person is perceived to have an interest. If the "effective altruism" people seem to enjoy being labeled as such (as opposed to just generic altruist/normal human beings) the articles talking about their method start sounding like advertising. I like the utilitarian idea and using evidence and reason, but as an engineer I apply it anyhow for many things, so giving it a specific name for the case of "altruism" seems ... strange. Never crossed my mind to write an article "everybody should be an engineer because then you would use more evidence and reason in your daily life".

burkaman 3y ago

The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs. You can objectively state that a lightbulb is better because it produces the exact same light with half the electricity, but you can't objectively say that a charity helping children is better than one helping disabled adults, for example. That is a subjective moral decision, and it's fine to discuss it and debate it, but not fine to say "mine is objectively more effective, just look at my quality-adjusted life years spreadsheet". This is not to say that all charity is perfectly interchangeable - for example, you can make very strong arguments that donating to a university with a $50 billion endowment is ineffective. Again there is nothing wrong with discussing these things, you just can't make a blanket statement that your particular philosophical framework is the best one.

roywiggins 3y ago
And even lightbulbs have to make tradeoffs between efficiency and lifespan. Yeah, all else being equal the efficient bulb is better, but it's quite rare that all else actually is equal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY
henryaj 3y ago
> The whole point is that you can't compare charity like you can lightbulbs. Often you can. Even charities that are attempting to do the same thing (e.g. stop people dying of malaria) vary wildly in their 'effectiveness' - which is really just a fancy way of saying e.g. 'how many people we prevented dying of malaria per $ spent'. > but not fine to say "mine is objectively more effective, just look at my quality-adjusted life years spreadsheet". ...because? QALYs are an attempt to make these comparisons possible; it's not clear what your objection here actually is.
- burkaman 3y ago
  QALYs are a legitimate attempt to make these comparisons, but they are not the only method, and there is no way to determine an objectively correct method. It is not objectively true to say that a young life is more valuable than an old life. It isn't wrong, it just isn't objective. It is a subjective personal belief. Again I am not saying that there is no such thing as effectiveness, and I agree that charities doing the exact same thing can be reasonably compared.
epivosism 3y ago
I feel your sincerity but I don't know why you're sure of that. I think it is pretty easy to construct situations where one course of action is better than another. For example helping more innocent people vs hardened people with no remorse. Or within the same groups, focusing more on disease eradication against targets which are more harmful vs those diseases which are only small inconveniences. I think EAs might just be trying to apply that same style reasoning to areas which aren't commonly viewed as clear yet. Ie say hey, you may not be familiar with it, but there is some information suggesting that between these two conventional charities, here is an analysis with assumptions laid out that suggests that contributuons may not actually be equivalent! You can still take it or leave it. I don't think they're saying they know everything perfectly. Just that they think it's important to push into the murky areas. I think the issue with blanket statements is on the listener. If I have an idea and somewhat boldly say hey all, I think my idea is better than anything before - and here's why, the "get mad and attack" response, even when sincere and correct, masks so many nonsincere responses. That is, lots of people who claim to be serious analysts frequently use the "attack" response, or the "I'm so tired of this" response. Sometimes that is justified but it's also a crutch and tends to harden battle lines. Personally I'd just figure out if I agree with them (and I don't) and why, and move on. I appreciate you not piling on to them, too.

vladms 3y ago

The article could be interpreted as advertising, if the person is perceived to have an interest. If the "effective altruism" people seem to enjoy being labeled as such (as opposed to just generic altruist/normal human beings) the articles talking about their method start sounding like advertising. I like the utilitarian idea and using evidence and reason, but as an engineer I apply it anyhow for many things, so giving it a specific name for the case of "altruism" seems ... strange. Never crossed my mind to write an article "everybody should be an engineer because then you would use more evidence and reason in your daily life".