The issue is, the objector can TELL, because people are good at knowing this kind of thing, that the EA talking to them simply believes they are wrong. From the objector’s perspective, the EA is not respecting their valid, debatable opinion. Instead of engaging with them as an equal, the EA is condescendingly explaining to them why they’re wrong.
There is an alternative to explaining something in a condescending way. You can explain something in an excited way!
I think this video does a good job of modeling this mode of explanation. It treats the other person as someone who’s competent and truth-seeking, just lacking a bit of information. Start by assuming they would love to learn of the opportunity to help people more effectively. And get excited about sharing information about how we know different charities can be effective.
Examples:
“Have you heard of the randomized controlled trials that tested the effects of insecticide treated bednets? When some villages were randomly given bednets, they had a lower incidence of malaria. And we can quantify a) how much it costs to provide the bednets and b) how many lives this kind of intervention saves. Turns out saving a life is surprisingly feasible for even ordinary Americans!”
“Did you know the Make a Wish Foundation says each wish costs about $7,000? There are studies of other charities that show they can do a LOT more with that money. Rather than flying kids out to Hawaii for a week, they can save multiple kids’ lives by providing vitamin A supplements!”
There is an alternative to explaining something in a condescending way. You can explain something in an excited way!
I think this video does a good job of modeling this mode of explanation. It treats the other person as someone who’s competent and truth-seeking, just lacking a bit of information. Start by assuming they would love to learn of the opportunity to help people more effectively. And get excited about sharing information about how we know different charities can be effective.
Examples:
“Have you heard of the randomized controlled trials that tested the effects of insecticide treated bednets? When some villages were randomly given bednets, they had a lower incidence of malaria. And we can quantify a) how much it costs to provide the bednets and b) how many lives this kind of intervention saves. Turns out saving a life is surprisingly feasible for even ordinary Americans!”
“Did you know the Make a Wish Foundation says each wish costs about $7,000? There are studies of other charities that show they can do a LOT more with that money. Rather than flying kids out to Hawaii for a week, they can save multiple kids’ lives by providing vitamin A supplements!”