3 ms·

> the gaps are actually astonishingly large For sure this is case. But just knowing what you are donating to doesn't need some sort of special designation. Lik

> the gaps are actually astonishingly large For sure this is case. But just knowing what you are donating to doesn't need some sort of special designation. Like yes A is in fact much better than B, so I'll donate to A instead of B is no different than any other decision where you'd weigh options. Its like inventing 'effective shopping'. How is it different than regular shopping? Well, with ES, you evaluate the value and quality of the thing you are buying against its price, you might also read reviews or talk to people to have used the different products before. Its a new philosophy of shopping that no one has ever thought of before and its called 'effective shopping'. Only smart people are doing it.

estearum 1y ago
The principal idea behind EA is that people often want their money to go as far as possible, but their intuitions for how to do that are way, way off. Nobody said or suggested only smart people can or should or are “doing EA.” What people observe is these knee jerk reactions against what is, as you say, a fairly obvious idea once stated. However it being an obvious idea once stated does not mean people intuitively enact that idea, especially prior to hearing it. Thus the need to label the approach
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  > However it being an obvious idea once stated does not mean people intuitively enact that idea, especially prior to hearing it. Thus the need to label the approach This has some truth to it and if EA were primarily about reminding people that not all donations to charitable causes pack the same punch and that some might even be deleterious, then I wouldn't have any issues with it at all. But that's not what it is anymore, at least not the most notable version of it. My knee jerk reaction to it comes from this version. The one where narcissistic tech bros posture moral and intellectual superiority not only because they give, but because they give better than you.
  - Joeboy 1y ago
    Out of interest, do you identify any of the comments in this discussion as that kind of posturing? The "pro-EA" comments I see here seem (to me) to be fairly defensive in character. Whereas comments attacking EA seem pretty strident. Are you perceiving something different?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
      My impression of EA is not based on the comments here but the more public figures in this space. It is likely that others attacking EA are reacting to this also, while those defending it are doing so about the general concept of EA rather than a specific realization of EA that commenters like myself are against.
      - estearum 1y ago
        Which public figures? SBF? Subtract billionaire activity from your perception of EA attitude: is this critique still true? Who specifically makes it so?
        Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        > Subtract billionaire activity from your perception of EA attitude But that's the problem, that is my entire perception of EA. I see regular altruism where, like in the shopping example I gave above, wanting to be effective is already intrinsic. Doing things like giving people information that some forms of giving are better than others is just great. No issues there at all, but again I see that as a part of plain old regular altruism. Then there is Effective Altruism (tm) which is the billionaire version that I see as performative and corrupt. Even when it helps people, this seems to be incidental rather that the main goal which appears to be marketing the EA premise for self promotion and back patting.
        estearum 1y ago
        Obviously EA has a perception problem, but I have to admit it’s a little odd hearing someone just say that they know their perception is probably inaccurate and yet they choose to believe and propagate it regardless.

estearum 1y ago

The principal idea behind EA is that people often want their money to go as far as possible, but their intuitions for how to do that are way, way off. Nobody said or suggested only smart people can or should or are “doing EA.” What people observe is these knee jerk reactions against what is, as you say, a fairly obvious idea once stated. However it being an obvious idea once stated does not mean people intuitively enact that idea, especially prior to hearing it. Thus the need to label the approach

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> However it being an obvious idea once stated does not mean people intuitively enact that idea, especially prior to hearing it. Thus the need to label the approach This has some truth to it and if EA were primarily about reminding people that not all donations to charitable causes pack the same punch and that some might even be deleterious, then I wouldn't have any issues with it at all. But that's not what it is anymore, at least not the most notable version of it. My knee jerk reaction to it comes from this version. The one where narcissistic tech bros posture moral and intellectual superiority not only because they give, but because they give better than you.
- Joeboy 1y ago
  Out of interest, do you identify any of the comments in this discussion as that kind of posturing? The "pro-EA" comments I see here seem (to me) to be fairly defensive in character. Whereas comments attacking EA seem pretty strident. Are you perceiving something different?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    My impression of EA is not based on the comments here but the more public figures in this space. It is likely that others attacking EA are reacting to this also, while those defending it are doing so about the general concept of EA rather than a specific realization of EA that commenters like myself are against.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Which public figures? SBF? Subtract billionaire activity from your perception of EA attitude: is this critique still true? Who specifically makes it so?
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        > Subtract billionaire activity from your perception of EA attitude But that's the problem, that is my entire perception of EA. I see regular altruism where, like in the shopping example I gave above, wanting to be effective is already intrinsic. Doing things like giving people information that some forms of giving are better than others is just great. No issues there at all, but again I see that as a part of plain old regular altruism. Then there is Effective Altruism (tm) which is the billionaire version that I see as performative and corrupt. Even when it helps people, this seems to be incidental rather that the main goal which appears to be marketing the EA premise for self promotion and back patting.
        estearum 1y ago
        Obviously EA has a perception problem, but I have to admit it’s a little odd hearing someone just say that they know their perception is probably inaccurate and yet they choose to believe and propagate it regardless.