3 ms·

You’re welcome to disagree but it’s not just me who thinks EA has cult-like attributes: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ea+a+cult https://www.google.com/sear

by alvah 3y ago

You’re welcome to disagree but it’s not just me who thinks EA has cult-like attributes: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ea+a+cult https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ea+a+cult I’m quite happy with the childish idealist description though. Putting childish idealists in charge of $billions of other people’s money might sound like a great idea to you, but would you put them in charge of your money?

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
"Cult" makes it sound like Scientology. Scientology doesn't run criticism contests of itself. As another datapoint, many of the most-upvoted posts on the EA Forum are EA critiques of one sort or another: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/allPosts?timeframe=allTime&sortedBy=top&hideCommunity=false https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/allPosts?timeframe=allTi... Wikipedia says you have to apply to attend some EA events. That's true for lots of things. TED isn't open to just anyone either. If you want to go to an EA event without applying, most group events are pretty casual and don't require any application: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups (Note: I heard a rumor that EA events in Germany are less likely to be open to the public) >Putting childish idealists in charge of $billions of other people’s money might sound like a great idea to you, but would you put them in charge of your money? Well, I have in fact donated significant sums to some EA organizations, and I have a recurring donation to the Good Food Institute (working on meat alternatives). I don't agree with the "childish idealist" description of EA though. From my perspective, it's remarkable how easily Sam Altman seems to manipulate people, and he seems more successful at manipulating people outside of the EA community.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > "Cult" makes it sound like Scientology. Other than telling me that you have a narrow understanding of a "cult", I'm not sure what this is supposed to communicate.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    You're welcome to say EA is a cult if you include the caveat that "by cult, I mean a thing that gives lots of money and upvotes to people who criticize it". That way it will be clear that your definition of "cult" is broad enough to include things like that. Not everyone defines the word so broadly. BTW, for people reading this discussion, here's an alternative explanation of why EA tends to be controversial: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/effective-altruism-thinks-youre-hitler https://www.richardhanania.com/p/effective-altruism-thinks-y...
- alvah 3y ago
  I had a quick skim through this one from your list: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/announcing-the-publication-of-animal-liberation-now https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/... I note this post by the high priest of the cult makes no mention of his recent moral relativist defence of bestiality - surely an oversight?: https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707 https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    The post is from May. The tweet is from November. I'm not sure why you'd expect the post to mention the tweet, because (a) the tweet was 6 months in the future, relative to the time of the post, and (b) the tweet doesn't appear very relevant to the topic of the post. Peter Singer is more of an EA popularizer than an EA leader. The post you linked is the only post he has made in the past ~9 years: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer The tweet you linked is related to his Journal of Controversial Ideas, not EA. It's certainly not the case that Singer should be taken as representative of the average EA, you'd have to look at surveys for that: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk However EA tends to be friendly to contrarian thought experiments (not usually taking it to Peter Singer levels). And EAs usually prefer to focus on getting facts right over condemning each other in an inflammatory way.
    - alvah 3y ago
      So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to mention his...unusual views (due to his naive utilitarian philosophy) later on in that EA forum thread, the first thread he's posted in 9 years, the thread who's topic is closely related to the topic of the Twitter thread I linked? Is EA distancing itself from Singer (who's views are, by all accounts, extremely influential in the EA community), as they did with SBF (whose hedge fund's initial $170m seed capital was raised from EA devotees)? When multiple high-profile people associated with EA are proven to be....problematic, should we pretend the common factor linking them is insignificant? Inflammatory? I thought I was quite restrained compared to some of the commenters on that Twitter thread.

by alvah 3y ago

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago

"Cult" makes it sound like Scientology. Scientology doesn't run criticism contests of itself. As another datapoint, many of the most-upvoted posts on the EA Forum are EA critiques of one sort or another: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/allPosts?timeframe=allTime&sortedBy=top&hideCommunity=false https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/allPosts?timeframe=allTi... Wikipedia says you have to apply to attend some EA events. That's true for lots of things. TED isn't open to just anyone either. If you want to go to an EA event without applying, most group events are pretty casual and don't require any application: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups (Note: I heard a rumor that EA events in Germany are less likely to be open to the public) >Putting childish idealists in charge of $billions of other people’s money might sound like a great idea to you, but would you put them in charge of your money? Well, I have in fact donated significant sums to some EA organizations, and I have a recurring donation to the Good Food Institute (working on meat alternatives). I don't agree with the "childish idealist" description of EA though. From my perspective, it's remarkable how easily Sam Altman seems to manipulate people, and he seems more successful at manipulating people outside of the EA community.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> "Cult" makes it sound like Scientology. Other than telling me that you have a narrow understanding of a "cult", I'm not sure what this is supposed to communicate.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  You're welcome to say EA is a cult if you include the caveat that "by cult, I mean a thing that gives lots of money and upvotes to people who criticize it". That way it will be clear that your definition of "cult" is broad enough to include things like that. Not everyone defines the word so broadly. BTW, for people reading this discussion, here's an alternative explanation of why EA tends to be controversial: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/effective-altruism-thinks-youre-hitler https://www.richardhanania.com/p/effective-altruism-thinks-y...
alvah 3y ago
I had a quick skim through this one from your list: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/announcing-the-publication-of-animal-liberation-now https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8xNSiwj5gjoDTRquQ/... I note this post by the high priest of the cult makes no mention of his recent moral relativist defence of bestiality - surely an oversight?: https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707 https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  The post is from May. The tweet is from November. I'm not sure why you'd expect the post to mention the tweet, because (a) the tweet was 6 months in the future, relative to the time of the post, and (b) the tweet doesn't appear very relevant to the topic of the post. Peter Singer is more of an EA popularizer than an EA leader. The post you linked is the only post he has made in the past ~9 years: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/users/peter_singer The tweet you linked is related to his Journal of Controversial Ideas, not EA. It's certainly not the case that Singer should be taken as representative of the average EA, you'd have to look at surveys for that: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/s/FxFwhFG227F6FgnKk However EA tends to be friendly to contrarian thought experiments (not usually taking it to Peter Singer levels). And EAs usually prefer to focus on getting facts right over condemning each other in an inflammatory way.
  - alvah 3y ago
    So the high priest / philosophical originator (guardian.com) of the cult should not "be taken as a representative of the average EA," and nobody saw fit to mention his...unusual views (due to his naive utilitarian philosophy) later on in that EA forum thread, the first thread he's posted in 9 years, the thread who's topic is closely related to the topic of the Twitter thread I linked? Is EA distancing itself from Singer (who's views are, by all accounts, extremely influential in the EA community), as they did with SBF (whose hedge fund's initial $170m seed capital was raised from EA devotees)? When multiple high-profile people associated with EA are proven to be....problematic, should we pretend the common factor linking them is insignificant? Inflammatory? I thought I was quite restrained compared to some of the commenters on that Twitter thread.