Hello AnonEALeftistâthanks for sharing your thoughts, and Iâm 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. Iâm 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 donât 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 âEAâ, if you get what I mean.
I definitely get you mean, and Iâd like to see the community explore it more in good faith. Are there any articles/âresources 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 Craryâs criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I donât think this is just because sheâs not framing her arguments in EA language/âterms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I donât think we call Leftism âa straightforward case of moral corruptionâ.
For example, I find it very difficult to see Craryâs criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I donât think this is just because sheâs not framing her arguments in EA language/âterms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I donât think we call Leftism âa straightforward case of moral corruptionâ.
I have seen some EAâs 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/âperspective.
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 âbad faithâ or âbad epistemicsâ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasnât 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! Iâve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. Iâm 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 itâs a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/âWTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the âWashington Consensusâ)[1] and how they may have harmed the worldâs poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA âthe Dumbest Idea of the Centuryâ. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldnât have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, Iâd 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 itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
I understand. I never take this stuff personally myself. I even think itâs more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for itâat that time and place) if itâs espescially disagreeable/â hostile.
I havenât read Crary but itâs on my list. The headline for McGoeyâs piece is quite harsh, but thereâs no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. âexcuses for the richâ isnât that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positionsâwhilst itâs head for us to hearâit wouldnât be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesnât EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If itâs ultimately good for EA in the endâbring it on! More critcism is good.
Hello AnonEALeftistâthanks for sharing your thoughts, and Iâm 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. Iâm 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 donât 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 Iâd like to see the community explore it more in good faith. Are there any articles/âresources 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 Craryâs criticism of EA as being in good faith, and I donât think this is just because sheâs not framing her arguments in EA language/âterms, but even when EA is critical of the Left, I donât think we call Leftism âa straightforward case of moral corruptionâ.
Or at least, one interpretation
Not really wanting to dive fully into thisâbut itâs 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 EAâs 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/âperspective.
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://âârenewal.org.uk/ââeffective-altruism-longtermism-and-democracy-an-interview-with-dr-luke-kemp/ââ
McGoey makes good points about EA culture, e.g. EAs generally being ignorant of the role the IMF/âWTO 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 âbad faithâ or âbad epistemicsâ without backing it up with clear reasoning, I just think there hasnât 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! Iâve bookmarked it and will make sure to read. Iâm 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 itâs a bit in between the two. EAs having a blindspot about the policies of the IMF/âWTO (especially in the postwar 20th century and the ascendance of the âWashington Consensusâ)[1] and how they may have harmed the worldâs poorest people seems like a very valid critique that EAs could explore for sure. But the article subheading calls EA âthe Dumbest Idea of the Centuryâ. Now, of course, EA critiques shouldnât have to obey Marquess of Queensberry rules in order to be listened to be EAs. But I think itâs probably a psychological fact that if a group of critics keeps calling your ideas some combination of âmoral corruptionâ, âthe dumbest ideaâ, âexcuses for the richâ and âwhite supremacist/âfascistâ[2], then youâll probably just stop responding to their work.
If any EAs want to look into this, Iâd 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 itâs more important to engage with criticism (provided you are headstrong for itâat that time and place) if itâs espescially disagreeable/â hostile.
I havenât read Crary but itâs on my list. The headline for McGoeyâs piece is quite harsh, but thereâs no real nice way to say some of these things (e.g. âexcuses for the richâ isnât that much nicer from what Kemp says about EA being captured by billionaire interests). These critics sincerely hold these positionsâwhilst itâs head for us to hearâit wouldnât be right for them to water down their criticisms either.
And ultimately, doesnât EA deserve harsh criticism, with the spate of scandals that have emerged & emerging? If itâs ultimately good for EA in the endâbring it on! More critcism is good.