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.
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.