4 ms·

> 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 appr

> 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.
        Joeboy 1y ago
        To be fair trying to be fair and accurate is pretty thankless.
        estearum 1y ago
        Here's another version: "A lot of people think that EA is some hifalutin, condescending endeavor and billionaire utilitarians hijack its ideology to justify extreme greed (and sometimes fraud!), but in reality, EA is simply the imperative (accessible to anyone) to direct their altruistic efforts toward what will actually do the most good for the causes they care about. This is in contrast to the most people's default mode of relying on marketing, locality, vibes, or personal emotional satisfaction to guide their generosity." See? Fair and accurate, and without propagating things I know or suspect to be untrue!
        Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        This is perfectly fine definition, if you change the "but in reality" to "and". Like it or not, EA means both of these things simultaneously. So its not that if someone uses one definition that they are wrong, only that they are using that definition. Language is like that. There is no official definition, its whatever people on mass decide to use and sometimes there is a split vote.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

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.
      - Joeboy 1y ago
        To be fair trying to be fair and accurate is pretty thankless.
        estearum 1y ago
        Here's another version: "A lot of people think that EA is some hifalutin, condescending endeavor and billionaire utilitarians hijack its ideology to justify extreme greed (and sometimes fraud!), but in reality, EA is simply the imperative (accessible to anyone) to direct their altruistic efforts toward what will actually do the most good for the causes they care about. This is in contrast to the most people's default mode of relying on marketing, locality, vibes, or personal emotional satisfaction to guide their generosity." See? Fair and accurate, and without propagating things I know or suspect to be untrue!
        Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
        This is perfectly fine definition, if you change the "but in reality" to "and". Like it or not, EA means both of these things simultaneously. So its not that if someone uses one definition that they are wrong, only that they are using that definition. Language is like that. There is no official definition, its whatever people on mass decide to use and sometimes there is a split vote.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]