We want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out. So we should be open to high-quality critiques, but not waste our time on low quality ones. My general worry with this post is that it doesn’t distinguish between the two. There seems a background assumption that EAs dismiss anti-capitalist or post-colonial critiques because we’re just closed-minded, rather than because those critiques are bad. I’m not so sure that you can just assume this!
Doing EA Lefter?
Another general worry I have about “Doing EA Better”, and perhaps especially this post, is the extent to which it seems to be implicitly pushing an agenda of “be more generically leftist, and less analytical”. If my impression here is mistaken, feel free to clarify this (and maybe add more political diversity to your list of recommended “deep critiques”—should we be as open to Hanania’s “anti-woke” stuff as to Crary et al?).
Insofar as the general message is, in effect, “think in ways that are less distinctive of EA”, whether this is good or bad advice will obviously depend on whether EA-style thinking is better or worse than the alternatives. Presumably most of us are here because we think it’s better. So that makes “be less distinctively EA” a hard sell, especially without firm evidence that the alternatives are better.
Some of this feels to me like, “Stop being you! Be this other person instead.” I don’t like this advice at all.
I wonder if it’s possible to separate out some of the more neutral advice/suggestions from the distracting “stop thinking in traditional analytic style” advice?
Yeah I mean your intuition isn’t wrong, one of the parts is literally “ways of knowing” and links to a mid-tier breadtuber. It’s this weird left-wing envy I don’t get in EA. If we want to reduce conflict and infighting I don’t understand why looking towards the Left of all places. This portion of the OP is the worst written but I feel like EAs upvote it and say they like it because it reads of epistemically virtuous to be open to it. Also the authors are a bit dishonest as last time they received the partisan criticism they just pretended it was not left-leaning at all[1].
Honestly, I wanted to write a left-wing critique[2] but reading the ConcernedEAs stuff made me realise it’d just get lumped in and also bad faith actors just use criticism as a cudgel. I also don’t understand the deep criticism argument co-existing with the pseudonym argument because left-wing movements already exist and you can join them? You don’t need to stay in EA! You can also just split your time up?
I already wrote it and it’s about solidarity and the reactionary attitudes towards polyamory and circular firing squads in EA but I’m definitely not releasing it in the current climate. If anything I’m most tempted to write a post in the opposite direction against the Left at this point.
There seems a background assumption that EAs dismiss anti-capitalist or post-colonial critiques because we’re just closed-minded
So of course, no, not all of us EAs dismiss these critiques, because a few us champion these critiques ourselves.
rather than because those critiques are bad.
Ouch, this hurt. But I shall recover 😢. But suffice to say, libertarian EAs shouldn’t assume these critiques are bad either.
I will point out that to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians (cryptocurrency, race science, sexual abuse in polyarmorous community), and I do think the more reckless libertarians in EA have done more to hurt this movement than anyone else.
If EA became more left-wing, in my leftist opinion, it would be more “EA”, if you get what I mean.
I will point out that to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians (cryptocurrency, race science, sexual abuse in polyarmorous community).
Hmm this seems patently false to me?[1]. Am I misunderstanding something? If not, I’d appreciate it if people don’t assert false things on the forum.
SBF was a major Democratic donor with parents who are Democratic donors. I doubt he ever identified as libertarian. Among the biggest critiques of Bostrom’s academic views is that he seems too open to authoritarian survelliance (cf Vulnerable World Hypothesis), hardly a libertarian position. I don’t know which incidences of “sexual abuse in polyarmorous community” you’re referring to, but I suspect you’re wrong there too.
Hi Linch, sorry for the confusion. I that comment was not spceifically about certain people, and I never named SBF, Bostrom etc.
I was more referring to the general communities of people who are interested in those respective areas as being libertarians. Example, there are many EAs working in cryptocurrency and they tend to be libertarian. Many EAs have expressed interest in Race-IQ differences on the forum, not just Bostrom. Cryptocurrency, Race-IQ differences, and polyamory tend to be libertarian dominated areas of fascination.
I do believe SBF donated large sums to Republicans. And Bostrom’s views seem to accord well with right-libertarians like Peter Thiel. I bring this up because Thiel has not been shy of using surveillance, having founded Palantir. Bostrom was also a member of Extropians with known libertarian links.
But I don’t really want to be speculating on these specific individuals political views, but make the broader point that those areas of itnerest are assosciated with libertarians.
I think we’re maybe talking past each other. E.g. I would not classify Thiel’s political views as libertarian (I think he might have been at one point, but certainly not in the last 10+ years), and I’ll be surprised if the median American or libertarian would. Some specific points:
Example, there are many EAs working in cryptocurrency and they tend to be libertarian
To be clear, the problem with SBF is that he stole billions of dollars. Theft is no less of a problem if it was in the traditional financial system.[1]
I do believe SBF donated large sums to Republicans.
Notably, not to the Libertarian Party!
Cryptocurrency, Race-IQ differences, and polyamory tend to be libertarian dominated areas of fascination.
Seems pretty unfalsifiable to me. Also kinda irrelevant.
But I don’t really want to be speculating on these specific individuals political views, but make the broader point that those areas of itnerest are assosciated with libertarians.
Seems like an unusual framing of “to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians.” Usually when I think (paraphrased)”X group of people caused Y” I don’t think “X group of people have areas of interests in the vicinity of Y.”
I see where you’re coming form, but I do see libertarianism as the thread that unerpins all these scandals together.
Thiel has described himself as a conservative libertarian in the past, but yes his politics are more conservative overall now. But I make the point that surveillance/authoritarianism is not incompatible with libertarian view, and Bostrom was a an Extropian
SBF’s “problem” also includes his activities for cryptocurrency adoption, which if embraced, could have caused widespread problems in the financial system. And I want to stress, cryptocurrency scandals in EA have been broader than just SBF (e.g. Ben Delo, Avraham Eisenberg). I want to stress that the cryptocurrency scandal in EA is not just SBF, but more systematic.
This is a strange and unhelpful-seeming comment. Obviously nothing I wrote should be read as denying that EAs are politically diverse (generic references to “EAs” should always be read as implicitly preceded by the word “many”).
I’d like to see more folks from across the political spectrum be happily involved in EA.
Things I don’t like so much:*
Gratuitous disrespect, e.g. through deliberately mis-naming your interlocutors.
The apparent assumption than anyone not a leftist must be a libertarian. (Is Joe Biden a libertarian too?)
Employing guilt-by-association tactics, and trying to pick a fight about which subgroups are collectively the worst.
The latter is the worst offense, IMO, and illustrates precisely the kind of tribal/politicized thinking that I strongly hope is never accepted in EA. I’d much prefer a “big tent” where folks with different views respectfully offer object-level arguments to try to persuade each other to change their minds, rather than this kind of rhetorical sniping. (Seriously, what good do you imagine the latter will achieve?)
Note that my complaint about “Doing EA Lefter” is not that I’ve anything against people trying to argue for views further left than mine—by all means, feel free! My concern was that their recommendations seemed to be presupposing leftism, and brutely commanding others to agree, rather than providing object-level arguments that might persuade the rest of us.
* = (I guess I also think it’s bad form to create a burner account for the sole purpose of writing a comment with those other bad features.)
Sorry Richard, I meant no disrepsect. And I appreciate you acknowledging that there are leftsist EAs.
Without wanting to do guilt-by-association, I simply wanted to express that there would have been a clear benefit to having a more left-wing EA, since leftists are more critical of cryptocurrencies etc. There were many EAs who did the right thing warning about cryptocurrency/SBF, but they were smaller in number, and overlooked by the community. So apologies I went too far maligning all libertarians/non-leftists.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. (I agree that a general advantage of having a more diverse/”big tent” coalition is that different ppl/perspectives may be more or less likely to pick up on different potential problems.)
Hello AnonEALeftist—thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I’m sorry if you felt like you had to post anonymously because of being leftist.
I think what Richard is perhaps getting at here[1] is not to say that all leftist critiques of EA are bad, but instead that EAs have come across them and have considered them lacking, and that this DEAB section is trying to get EA to consider these ideas while not actually arguing for them on the object level first. You may find this unfair, and I think the (alleged) ideological clash between EA and the Left has been danced around a bit by the community. I’m very much in favour of more constructive debate between the Left and EA though, and I hope you fellow lefty EAs can help contribute to that :)
I will point out that to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians
I don’t think this is fully below-the-belt, but I think libertarian EAs would push back that libertarianism would necessarily be related, or causally responsible, for these harms.[2]
If EA became more left-wing, in my leftist opinion, it would be more “EA”, if you get what I mean.
I definitely get you mean, and I’d like to see the community explore it more in good faith. Are there any articles/resources that you think would be helpful for non-leftist EAs trying to explore this point of view? One thing I find fairly off-putting about some[3] leftist criticism is how relentlessly hostile it is. For example, I find it very difficult to see Crary’s criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I don’t think this is just because she’s not framing her arguments in EA language/terms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I don’t think we call Leftism “a straightforward case of moral corruption”.
For example, I find it very difficult to see Crary’s criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I don’t think this is just because she’s not framing her arguments in EA language/terms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I don’t think we call Leftism “a straightforward case of moral corruption”.
I have seen some EA’s accuse certain critiques as bad faith where I found them the opposite, and have seen attacks on Leftists (e.g. leftmism would make EA less analytical in the above comment). So I think a lot of this is due to differences in worldview/perspective.
But I certainly agree that there are some critiques of EA that are genuinely poorly done.
In terms of critiques I like:
Kemp makes great points about EAs being captured by wealthy interests
I do agree that some EAs have labelled certain critiques as ‘bad faith’ or ‘bad epistemics’ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasn’t been much vitriol of the level Crary engages with in her article, and I think that can be a barrier to good-faith dialogue on both sides.
The Kemp piece looks really good! I’ve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. I’m aware of Garrison and Habiba but will look into what Rutger has said. Thanks for sharing these people and their perspectives, I think these are exactly the kind of perspectives that EA should be listening to and engaging with.
The McGoey piece seems (at first glance) like it’s a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/WTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the “Washington Consensus”)[1] and how they may have harmed the world’s poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA “the Dumbest Idea of the Century”. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldn’t have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think it’s probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of “moral corruption”, “the dumbest idea”, “excuses for the rich” and “white supremacist/fascist”[2], then you’ll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, I’d recommend starting with Globalization and Its Discontents, by noted leftie firebrand *checks notes* Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and former Chief Economist of the World bank
But I think it’s probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of “moral corruption”, “the dumbest idea”, “excuses for the rich” and “white supremacist/fascist”[2], then you’ll probably just stop responding to their work.
I understand. I never take this stuff personally myself. I even think it’s more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for it—at that time and place) if it’s espescially disagreeable/ hostile.
I haven’t read Crary but it’s on my list. The headline for McGoey’s piece is quite harsh, but there’s no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. “excuses for the rich” isn’t that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positions—whilst it’s head for us to hear—it wouldn’t be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesn’t EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If it’s ultimately good for EA in the end—bring it on! More critcism is good.
The paradox of open-mindedness
We want to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains fall out. So we should be open to high-quality critiques, but not waste our time on low quality ones. My general worry with this post is that it doesn’t distinguish between the two. There seems a background assumption that EAs dismiss anti-capitalist or post-colonial critiques because we’re just closed-minded, rather than because those critiques are bad. I’m not so sure that you can just assume this!
Doing EA Lefter?
Another general worry I have about “Doing EA Better”, and perhaps especially this post, is the extent to which it seems to be implicitly pushing an agenda of “be more generically leftist, and less analytical”. If my impression here is mistaken, feel free to clarify this (and maybe add more political diversity to your list of recommended “deep critiques”—should we be as open to Hanania’s “anti-woke” stuff as to Crary et al?).
Insofar as the general message is, in effect, “think in ways that are less distinctive of EA”, whether this is good or bad advice will obviously depend on whether EA-style thinking is better or worse than the alternatives. Presumably most of us are here because we think it’s better. So that makes “be less distinctively EA” a hard sell, especially without firm evidence that the alternatives are better.
Some of this feels to me like, “Stop being you! Be this other person instead.” I don’t like this advice at all.
I wonder if it’s possible to separate out some of the more neutral advice/suggestions from the distracting “stop thinking in traditional analytic style” advice?
Yeah I mean your intuition isn’t wrong, one of the parts is literally “ways of knowing” and links to a mid-tier breadtuber. It’s this weird left-wing envy I don’t get in EA. If we want to reduce conflict and infighting I don’t understand why looking towards the Left of all places. This portion of the OP is the worst written but I feel like EAs upvote it and say they like it because it reads of epistemically virtuous to be open to it. Also the authors are a bit dishonest as last time they received the partisan criticism they just pretended it was not left-leaning at all[1].
Honestly, I wanted to write a left-wing critique[2] but reading the ConcernedEAs stuff made me realise it’d just get lumped in and also bad faith actors just use criticism as a cudgel. I also don’t understand the deep criticism argument co-existing with the pseudonym argument because left-wing movements already exist and you can join them? You don’t need to stay in EA! You can also just split your time up?
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1?commentId=mdkzyA7H82a5rvjrA#comments
I already wrote it and it’s about solidarity and the reactionary attitudes towards polyamory and circular firing squads in EA but I’m definitely not releasing it in the current climate. If anything I’m most tempted to write a post in the opposite direction against the Left at this point.
Well Rich, some of us here are leftists.
So of course, no, not all of us EAs dismiss these critiques, because a few us champion these critiques ourselves.
Ouch, this hurt. But I shall recover 😢. But suffice to say, libertarian EAs shouldn’t assume these critiques are bad either.
I will point out that to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians (cryptocurrency, race science, sexual abuse in polyarmorous community), and I do think the more reckless libertarians in EA have done more to hurt this movement than anyone else.
If EA became more left-wing, in my leftist opinion, it would be more “EA”, if you get what I mean.
Hmm this seems patently false to me?[1]. Am I misunderstanding something? If not, I’d appreciate it if people don’t assert false things on the forum.
SBF was a major Democratic donor with parents who are Democratic donors. I doubt he ever identified as libertarian. Among the biggest critiques of Bostrom’s academic views is that he seems too open to authoritarian survelliance (cf Vulnerable World Hypothesis), hardly a libertarian position. I don’t know which incidences of “sexual abuse in polyarmorous community” you’re referring to, but I suspect you’re wrong there too.
Hi Linch, sorry for the confusion. I that comment was not spceifically about certain people, and I never named SBF, Bostrom etc.
I was more referring to the general communities of people who are interested in those respective areas as being libertarians. Example, there are many EAs working in cryptocurrency and they tend to be libertarian. Many EAs have expressed interest in Race-IQ differences on the forum, not just Bostrom. Cryptocurrency, Race-IQ differences, and polyamory tend to be libertarian dominated areas of fascination.
I do believe SBF donated large sums to Republicans. And Bostrom’s views seem to accord well with right-libertarians like Peter Thiel. I bring this up because Thiel has not been shy of using surveillance, having founded Palantir. Bostrom was also a member of Extropians with known libertarian links.
But I don’t really want to be speculating on these specific individuals political views, but make the broader point that those areas of itnerest are assosciated with libertarians.
I think we’re maybe talking past each other. E.g. I would not classify Thiel’s political views as libertarian (I think he might have been at one point, but certainly not in the last 10+ years), and I’ll be surprised if the median American or libertarian would. Some specific points:
To be clear, the problem with SBF is that he stole billions of dollars. Theft is no less of a problem if it was in the traditional financial system.[1]
Notably, not to the Libertarian Party!
Seems pretty unfalsifiable to me. Also kinda irrelevant.
Seems like an unusual framing of “to-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians.” Usually when I think (paraphrased)”X group of people caused Y” I don’t think “X group of people have areas of interests in the vicinity of Y.”
If anything, non-consensual redistribution is much more of a leftist thing than that of any other modern political strand?
I see where you’re coming form, but I do see libertarianism as the thread that unerpins all these scandals together.
Thiel has described himself as a conservative libertarian in the past, but yes his politics are more conservative overall now. But I make the point that surveillance/authoritarianism is not incompatible with libertarian view, and Bostrom was a an Extropian
SBF’s “problem” also includes his activities for cryptocurrency adoption, which if embraced, could have caused widespread problems in the financial system. And I want to stress, cryptocurrency scandals in EA have been broader than just SBF (e.g. Ben Delo, Avraham Eisenberg). I want to stress that the cryptocurrency scandal in EA is not just SBF, but more systematic.
This is a strange and unhelpful-seeming comment. Obviously nothing I wrote should be read as denying that EAs are politically diverse (generic references to “EAs” should always be read as implicitly preceded by the word “many”).
I’d like to see more folks from across the political spectrum be happily involved in EA.
Things I don’t like so much:*
Gratuitous disrespect, e.g. through deliberately mis-naming your interlocutors.
The apparent assumption than anyone not a leftist must be a libertarian. (Is Joe Biden a libertarian too?)
Employing guilt-by-association tactics, and trying to pick a fight about which subgroups are collectively the worst.
The latter is the worst offense, IMO, and illustrates precisely the kind of tribal/politicized thinking that I strongly hope is never accepted in EA. I’d much prefer a “big tent” where folks with different views respectfully offer object-level arguments to try to persuade each other to change their minds, rather than this kind of rhetorical sniping. (Seriously, what good do you imagine the latter will achieve?)
Note that my complaint about “Doing EA Lefter” is not that I’ve anything against people trying to argue for views further left than mine—by all means, feel free! My concern was that their recommendations seemed to be presupposing leftism, and brutely commanding others to agree, rather than providing object-level arguments that might persuade the rest of us.
* = (I guess I also think it’s bad form to create a burner account for the sole purpose of writing a comment with those other bad features.)
Sorry Richard, I meant no disrepsect. And I appreciate you acknowledging that there are leftsist EAs.
Without wanting to do guilt-by-association, I simply wanted to express that there would have been a clear benefit to having a more left-wing EA, since leftists are more critical of cryptocurrencies etc. There were many EAs who did the right thing warning about cryptocurrency/SBF, but they were smaller in number, and overlooked by the community. So apologies I went too far maligning all libertarians/non-leftists.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. (I agree that a general advantage of having a more diverse/”big tent” coalition is that different ppl/perspectives may be more or less likely to pick up on different potential problems.)
Hello AnonEALeftist—thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I’m sorry if you felt like you had to post anonymously because of being leftist.
I think what Richard is perhaps getting at here[1] is not to say that all leftist critiques of EA are bad, but instead that EAs have come across them and have considered them lacking, and that this DEAB section is trying to get EA to consider these ideas while not actually arguing for them on the object level first. You may find this unfair, and I think the (alleged) ideological clash between EA and the Left has been danced around a bit by the community. I’m very much in favour of more constructive debate between the Left and EA though, and I hope you fellow lefty EAs can help contribute to that :)
I don’t think this is fully below-the-belt, but I think libertarian EAs would push back that libertarianism would necessarily be related, or causally responsible, for these harms.[2]
I definitely get you mean, and I’d like to see the community explore it more in good faith. Are there any articles/resources that you think would be helpful for non-leftist EAs trying to explore this point of view? One thing I find fairly off-putting about some[3] leftist criticism is how relentlessly hostile it is. For example, I find it very difficult to see Crary’s criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I don’t think this is just because she’s not framing her arguments in EA language/terms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I don’t think we call Leftism “a straightforward case of moral corruption”.
Or at least, one interpretation
Not really wanting to dive fully into this—but it’s somewhat analogous to being against all of EA because of SBF
But not all!
Thank you JWS. Really appreciate your comments.
I have seen some EA’s accuse certain critiques as bad faith where I found them the opposite, and have seen attacks on Leftists (e.g. leftmism would make EA less analytical in the above comment). So I think a lot of this is due to differences in worldview/perspective.
But I certainly agree that there are some critiques of EA that are genuinely poorly done.
In terms of critiques I like:
Kemp makes great points about EAs being captured by wealthy interests
https://renewal.org.uk/effective-altruism-longtermism-and-democracy-an-interview-with-dr-luke-kemp/
McGoey makes good points about EA culture, e.g. EAs generally being ignorant of the role the IMF/WTO have played in exacerbating global poverty
But also in terms of left wing EA support, Garrison Lovely, Rutger Bregman, & Habiba of 80K.
I do agree that some EAs have labelled certain critiques as ‘bad faith’ or ‘bad epistemics’ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasn’t been much vitriol of the level Crary engages with in her article, and I think that can be a barrier to good-faith dialogue on both sides.
The Kemp piece looks really good! I’ve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. I’m aware of Garrison and Habiba but will look into what Rutger has said. Thanks for sharing these people and their perspectives, I think these are exactly the kind of perspectives that EA should be listening to and engaging with.
The McGoey piece seems (at first glance) like it’s a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/WTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the “Washington Consensus”)[1] and how they may have harmed the world’s poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA “the Dumbest Idea of the Century”. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldn’t have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think it’s probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of “moral corruption”, “the dumbest idea”, “excuses for the rich” and “white supremacist/fascist”[2], then you’ll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, I’d recommend starting with Globalization and Its Discontents, by noted leftie firebrand *checks notes* Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and former Chief Economist of the World bank
Torres & Gebru especially deploy the rhetoric of the last 2
Glad to hear it.
I understand. I never take this stuff personally myself. I even think it’s more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for it—at that time and place) if it’s espescially disagreeable/ hostile.
I haven’t read Crary but it’s on my list. The headline for McGoey’s piece is quite harsh, but there’s no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. “excuses for the rich” isn’t that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positions—whilst it’s head for us to hear—it wouldn’t be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesn’t EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If it’s ultimately good for EA in the end—bring it on! More critcism is good.