Don't be too dismissive of giving to local recreational sports. Giving sports vouchers to children who are at risk or who have already been involved in a correctional system reduces the likelihood of becoming involved in crime and reduces recidivism. Sports, or pretty much anything that keeps kids busy doing something constructive after school, reduces the pool of future criminals, makes for a safer community, reduces the future demand for prisons, and engenders socially and economically valuable adults. Pretty good returns for low investment.
Dec 24, 2022·edited Dec 24, 2022Liked by Richard Y Chappell
I hesitate to raise this in part because it is a really vague question-- and perhaps one better suited to hearing your thoughts on in a more nuanced, and therefore inevitably off-line environment. But my concern with EA, insofar as it exists, has never been with the underlying argument per se or even (many of) the more popularly advocated conclusions defended by advocates of the view, all of which strike me as generally plausible. Instead, my worry is more about the culture surrounding EA which has always struck me (as an admitted outsider) as having shared resonances with certain versions of tech-bro-ism and more toxic variants of libertarianism in ways that I find troubling (slightly misogynistic, possibly slightly deaf to certain risks or lived experiences). (Again, my exposure is slightly orthogonal and limited, so I can be talked out of this empirical claim.) Again, as I said, there isn't anything about the ACTUAL EA values or arguments that per se justifies or explains this (the same can be said of tech culture and libertarianism.) Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies. (Like I said, this is an almost unhelpfully vague can't quite put my finger on it kind of worry). And that has made me somewhat hesitant about its role in public discourse EVEN IF its actual value structure is correct. I'm not quite sure if this is a real question, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it (if you have any) even if it just to tell me that my vague sense is bunk.
I've been involved in EA for about 7 years, and have gone to about 8 EA conferences over that time, most of them in the past year.
I don't think "toxic variants of libertarianism" are over-represented in EA. As a (mostly) libertarian myself I feel fairly isolated politically in EA spaces. EAs tend to be moderate democrat types (as in the US political party). Someone like Matt Yglesias would be very representative of the typical EA, politically.
EA's aren't that 'woke' on average, but there is a subset of them who are (maybe 5%?), so the language of "lived experiences" won't resonate that much with most EAs.
I also don't think they're very tech-bro-like, aside from mostly coming from privileged backgrounds and putting a lot of weight on intelligence.
Not sure; I don't think I'm well placed to judge the culture (I've never been to any "EA meetups", EA Global conferences, or the like), except to report that I haven't noticed anything egregious first-hand. I have read some EA forum posts raising concerns about misogyny in specific subcommunities (around the Bay area, I think, which is maybe more dominated by the "rationalist" community), and replies from other women in EA who've had better experiences, or at least regard the baseline for society at large as worse than in specifically EA spaces (though that's admittedly faint praise).
> "Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies."
I'd be curious to hear more about why that might be. I would've guessed that it's more just a matter of demographics, with heavily male-skewed spaces and communities ending up a bit tone-deaf (and sometimes worse) in certain respects.
It’s not an issue of moral cover, in the sense that they are some how trying to hide or are self deluded. It’s more like a business expense that buys them more opportunity to act badly. I’ll request a principle of charitable interpretation lest I have to explain the distinction further.
Some vain, stupid bad people put their names on popular causes (like hospitals, puppies, or EA), but it only calls more attention to their bad deeds. I’m not worried about those people, we always discover them. It’s the bad folks who are too smart to get caught that worry me.
And it is the platform of EA that enables them further. Most won’t even self identify as EA (it’s tacky), but rather will appeal to the pseudoscientific claims of effectiveness as such to enable greater opportunities for bad acting.
I understand that this may seem odd, but if you aren’t a part of that community - or depend on it for livelihood - then, granted, it is difficult to imagine.
And again, a relatively poor person ($250-500k a year) wouldn’t be wrong to use EA to donate $50k. But given that they don’t have all that much economic power, one wouldn’t expect them to think through things very carefully, and nor would it matter if they did since they are powerless. Their participation isn’t the issue, but rather the unknowing support of the platform you - in an absurd twist - don’t seem to think exists.
I know why you avoid questions of character: it’s a theoretical opposition, and that is appreciated.
I just wish you would engage the concept more directly.
Perhaps this will help: EA places the burden to do good on the individual without any structural conditions. That is, there is no incentive to meet the demands of EA so why would anyone do it? Moral character.
Yet, would someone with moral character meet the demands of EA? I don’t think so. But you seem to, and it would be great understand why you think that.
If you need help understanding why it’s hard to understand why someone with moral character would be an EA, I am happy to follow up with many more words.
But if you intend to act according to your baseline and simply ignore even entertaining the idea, I’ll save my breath.
Yes, I think it's trivially true that a good person will (i) want to help others, and (ii) prefer to do so more effectively. So a good person will be drawn to effective altruism.
The problem is that bad people help others too and arguably have a greater preference to do it more effectively.
1) helping more effectively gives them more time and resources to do bad things
2) helping others is an acceptable cost of doing bad things, since you couldn’t continue to do as many bad things if people thought you were a bad person.
If it were just a case of bad apples, then maybe you could ignore it as trivial, but I think it’s a feature, not a bug of EA. That is, while some people might be drawn to the local benefits of EA, they ignore the macro deficits, namely creating a platform for bad people to do much worse things.
Perhaps a decent person who hasn’t thought too carefully would be drawn to the good reasons to embrace EA, but a good person would have thought more carefully and chosen another way.
A bad actor who wants "moral cover" would do better to support popular causes like children's hospitals or puppies.
But I also doubt that bad people need "moral cover". (Just look at Trump.) There's very little correlation between popularity and doing good. (It would be an outright *liability* for a politician to be publicly vegan.)
Finally, individual donations don't "create a platform", so even if you think the existence of the EA community is a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that one should (perhaps quietly) donate to effective charities as an individual.
The current working theory of the world - it seems - is to avoid bad people, refer them to generalized services, add some marketing style rehabilitative language, and forget about them unless they have deterrence potential. Or, maybe make a good Netflix special.
Hmmmm…this is more interesting the more I think about it!!
What are the options:
1) ignore them
2) destroy them
3) handle them
4) care for them
What else? (Oh and please make an effort to conform any other options to these 4, so that you add a genuinely unique option rather than just expand on one I already added. Once we have a full list THEN a let’s expand!!)
Don't be too dismissive of giving to local recreational sports. Giving sports vouchers to children who are at risk or who have already been involved in a correctional system reduces the likelihood of becoming involved in crime and reduces recidivism. Sports, or pretty much anything that keeps kids busy doing something constructive after school, reduces the pool of future criminals, makes for a safer community, reduces the future demand for prisons, and engenders socially and economically valuable adults. Pretty good returns for low investment.
I hesitate to raise this in part because it is a really vague question-- and perhaps one better suited to hearing your thoughts on in a more nuanced, and therefore inevitably off-line environment. But my concern with EA, insofar as it exists, has never been with the underlying argument per se or even (many of) the more popularly advocated conclusions defended by advocates of the view, all of which strike me as generally plausible. Instead, my worry is more about the culture surrounding EA which has always struck me (as an admitted outsider) as having shared resonances with certain versions of tech-bro-ism and more toxic variants of libertarianism in ways that I find troubling (slightly misogynistic, possibly slightly deaf to certain risks or lived experiences). (Again, my exposure is slightly orthogonal and limited, so I can be talked out of this empirical claim.) Again, as I said, there isn't anything about the ACTUAL EA values or arguments that per se justifies or explains this (the same can be said of tech culture and libertarianism.) Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies. (Like I said, this is an almost unhelpfully vague can't quite put my finger on it kind of worry). And that has made me somewhat hesitant about its role in public discourse EVEN IF its actual value structure is correct. I'm not quite sure if this is a real question, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it (if you have any) even if it just to tell me that my vague sense is bunk.
I've been involved in EA for about 7 years, and have gone to about 8 EA conferences over that time, most of them in the past year.
I don't think "toxic variants of libertarianism" are over-represented in EA. As a (mostly) libertarian myself I feel fairly isolated politically in EA spaces. EAs tend to be moderate democrat types (as in the US political party). Someone like Matt Yglesias would be very representative of the typical EA, politically.
EA's aren't that 'woke' on average, but there is a subset of them who are (maybe 5%?), so the language of "lived experiences" won't resonate that much with most EAs.
I also don't think they're very tech-bro-like, aside from mostly coming from privileged backgrounds and putting a lot of weight on intelligence.
Not sure; I don't think I'm well placed to judge the culture (I've never been to any "EA meetups", EA Global conferences, or the like), except to report that I haven't noticed anything egregious first-hand. I have read some EA forum posts raising concerns about misogyny in specific subcommunities (around the Bay area, I think, which is maybe more dominated by the "rationalist" community), and replies from other women in EA who've had better experiences, or at least regard the baseline for society at large as worse than in specifically EA spaces (though that's admittedly faint praise).
> "Yet it has made me wonder sometimes if there wasn't something in the way of thinking or approaching valuing that supported or at least lent itself to that, given peoples' psychologies."
I'd be curious to hear more about why that might be. I would've guessed that it's more just a matter of demographics, with heavily male-skewed spaces and communities ending up a bit tone-deaf (and sometimes worse) in certain respects.
Nice summary
It’s not an issue of moral cover, in the sense that they are some how trying to hide or are self deluded. It’s more like a business expense that buys them more opportunity to act badly. I’ll request a principle of charitable interpretation lest I have to explain the distinction further.
Some vain, stupid bad people put their names on popular causes (like hospitals, puppies, or EA), but it only calls more attention to their bad deeds. I’m not worried about those people, we always discover them. It’s the bad folks who are too smart to get caught that worry me.
And it is the platform of EA that enables them further. Most won’t even self identify as EA (it’s tacky), but rather will appeal to the pseudoscientific claims of effectiveness as such to enable greater opportunities for bad acting.
I understand that this may seem odd, but if you aren’t a part of that community - or depend on it for livelihood - then, granted, it is difficult to imagine.
And again, a relatively poor person ($250-500k a year) wouldn’t be wrong to use EA to donate $50k. But given that they don’t have all that much economic power, one wouldn’t expect them to think through things very carefully, and nor would it matter if they did since they are powerless. Their participation isn’t the issue, but rather the unknowing support of the platform you - in an absurd twist - don’t seem to think exists.
I applaud your article and appreciate your describing an "effective" process on
deciding what qualifies for "altruism." It is not giving money and resources to
causes one enjoys supporting, but to causes that improve, support and enhance
the "human condition, that is another's standard/quality of life. Basic needs that go unmet
deprive human beings of dignity, hope and the opportunity to develop their God given gifts and talents.
I know why you avoid questions of character: it’s a theoretical opposition, and that is appreciated.
I just wish you would engage the concept more directly.
Perhaps this will help: EA places the burden to do good on the individual without any structural conditions. That is, there is no incentive to meet the demands of EA so why would anyone do it? Moral character.
Yet, would someone with moral character meet the demands of EA? I don’t think so. But you seem to, and it would be great understand why you think that.
If you need help understanding why it’s hard to understand why someone with moral character would be an EA, I am happy to follow up with many more words.
But if you intend to act according to your baseline and simply ignore even entertaining the idea, I’ll save my breath.
Yes, I think it's trivially true that a good person will (i) want to help others, and (ii) prefer to do so more effectively. So a good person will be drawn to effective altruism.
The problem is that bad people help others too and arguably have a greater preference to do it more effectively.
1) helping more effectively gives them more time and resources to do bad things
2) helping others is an acceptable cost of doing bad things, since you couldn’t continue to do as many bad things if people thought you were a bad person.
If it were just a case of bad apples, then maybe you could ignore it as trivial, but I think it’s a feature, not a bug of EA. That is, while some people might be drawn to the local benefits of EA, they ignore the macro deficits, namely creating a platform for bad people to do much worse things.
Perhaps a decent person who hasn’t thought too carefully would be drawn to the good reasons to embrace EA, but a good person would have thought more carefully and chosen another way.
A bad actor who wants "moral cover" would do better to support popular causes like children's hospitals or puppies.
But I also doubt that bad people need "moral cover". (Just look at Trump.) There's very little correlation between popularity and doing good. (It would be an outright *liability* for a politician to be publicly vegan.)
Finally, individual donations don't "create a platform", so even if you think the existence of the EA community is a bad thing, it doesn't change the fact that one should (perhaps quietly) donate to effective charities as an individual.
Shouldn't a good person want a bad person to do more good rather than less?
The current working theory of the world - it seems - is to avoid bad people, refer them to generalized services, add some marketing style rehabilitative language, and forget about them unless they have deterrence potential. Or, maybe make a good Netflix special.
Hmmmm…this is more interesting the more I think about it!!
What are the options:
1) ignore them
2) destroy them
3) handle them
4) care for them
What else? (Oh and please make an effort to conform any other options to these 4, so that you add a genuinely unique option rather than just expand on one I already added. Once we have a full list THEN a let’s expand!!)