The main thing that originally drove me away from the movement was people being dismissive toward causes that the EA movement doesnāt focus on. At the time, I believed that conventional causes like climate change and international human rights advocacy (e.g. Amnesty International) are worth working on, and I wanted to know more about how they stack up against EAās focus areas. I heard comments like (paraphrased below):
In response to my suggestion that an EA student group partner with advocacy orgs at the university: āWe could, but a lot of them are probably not effective.ā
In response to my complaint that EA doesnāt focus enough on climate change: āYou have to prioritize among the global catastrophic risks. Climate change is the least of them all.ā (I think they meant to say āleast neglectedā, but just saying āleastā made it sound like they were saying climate change isnāt important.)
Do you think you wouldnāt have found it as negative/āabrasive if the people still basically argued against a focus on those causes or an engagement with other advocacy orgs or the like, but did so in a way that felt less like a quick, pre-loaded answer, and more like they:
were really explaining their reasoning
were open to seeing if you had new arguments for your position
were just questioning neglectedness/ātractability, rather than importance
I ask because I think thereāll be a near-inevitable tension at times between being welcoming to peopleās current cause prioritisation views and staying focused on what does seem most worth prioritising.[1] So perhaps the ideal would be a bit more genuine open-mindedness to alternative views, but mainly a more welcoming and less dismissive-seeming way of explaining āourā views. Iād hope that that would be sufficient to avoid seeming arrogant or abrasive or driving people away, but I donāt know.
(Something else may instead be the ideal. This could include spending more time helping people think about the most effective approaches to causes that donāt actually seem to be worth prioritising. But I suspect that thatās not ideal in many cases.)
[1] Iām not sure this tension is strong for climate change, as I do think there are decent arguments for prioritising (neglected aspects of) climate change (e.g., nuclear power, research into low-probability extreme risks). But I think this tension probably exists for human rights advocacy and various other issues many people care about.
Yeah. I agree that the tension exists. Cause prioritization is one of the core ideas of EA, so itās important for us to emphasize that, but delicately so that we donāt alienate others. Personally, I would use I-statements, such as āI care about <issue 1> too, but Iāve chosen to focus on <issue 2> instead because itās much more neglected,ā instead of you-statements that might put the listener on the defensive.
It also reminds me of the ideaāwhich Iāve either heard before or said beforeāof talking about taking the Giving What We Can pledge by telling the story of what led one to take it, rather than as an argument for why one should take it. A good thing about that is that you can still present the arguments for taking it, as they probably played a role in the story, and if other arguments played a role in other peopleās stories you can talk about that too. But it probably feels less pushy or preachy that way, compared to framing it more explicitly as a set of arguments.
I also think asking people questions about why they hold a view you think is wrong that suggestively indicate why you think itās wrong can be a good approach (e.g. āBut donāt you think...?ā).
The main thing that originally drove me away from the movement was people being dismissive toward causes that the EA movement doesnāt focus on. At the time, I believed that conventional causes like climate change and international human rights advocacy (e.g. Amnesty International) are worth working on, and I wanted to know more about how they stack up against EAās focus areas. I heard comments like (paraphrased below):
In response to my suggestion that an EA student group partner with advocacy orgs at the university: āWe could, but a lot of them are probably not effective.ā
In response to my complaint that EA doesnāt focus enough on climate change: āYou have to prioritize among the global catastrophic risks. Climate change is the least of them all.ā (I think they meant to say āleast neglectedā, but just saying āleastā made it sound like they were saying climate change isnāt important.)
Thanks for sharing :)
Do you think you wouldnāt have found it as negative/āabrasive if the people still basically argued against a focus on those causes or an engagement with other advocacy orgs or the like, but did so in a way that felt less like a quick, pre-loaded answer, and more like they:
were really explaining their reasoning
were open to seeing if you had new arguments for your position
were just questioning neglectedness/ātractability, rather than importance
I ask because I think thereāll be a near-inevitable tension at times between being welcoming to peopleās current cause prioritisation views and staying focused on what does seem most worth prioritising.[1] So perhaps the ideal would be a bit more genuine open-mindedness to alternative views, but mainly a more welcoming and less dismissive-seeming way of explaining āourā views. Iād hope that that would be sufficient to avoid seeming arrogant or abrasive or driving people away, but I donāt know.
(Something else may instead be the ideal. This could include spending more time helping people think about the most effective approaches to causes that donāt actually seem to be worth prioritising. But I suspect that thatās not ideal in many cases.)
[1] Iām not sure this tension is strong for climate change, as I do think there are decent arguments for prioritising (neglected aspects of) climate change (e.g., nuclear power, research into low-probability extreme risks). But I think this tension probably exists for human rights advocacy and various other issues many people care about.
Yeah. I agree that the tension exists. Cause prioritization is one of the core ideas of EA, so itās important for us to emphasize that, but delicately so that we donāt alienate others. Personally, I would use I-statements, such as āI care about <issue 1> too, but Iāve chosen to focus on <issue 2> instead because itās much more neglected,ā instead of you-statements that might put the listener on the defensive.
That makes sense to me.
It also reminds me of the ideaāwhich Iāve either heard before or said beforeāof talking about taking the Giving What We Can pledge by telling the story of what led one to take it, rather than as an argument for why one should take it. A good thing about that is that you can still present the arguments for taking it, as they probably played a role in the story, and if other arguments played a role in other peopleās stories you can talk about that too. But it probably feels less pushy or preachy that way, compared to framing it more explicitly as a set of arguments.
(These two pages may also be relevant: 1, 2.)
I also think asking people questions about why they hold a view you think is wrong that suggestively indicate why you think itās wrong can be a good approach (e.g. āBut donāt you think...?ā).