There seems a background assumption that EAs dismiss anti-capitalist or post-colonial critiques because weâre 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 đą. But suffice to say, libertarian EAs shouldnât 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 âEAâ, 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, Iâd appreciate it if people donât 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 Bostromâs academic views is that he seems too open to authoritarian survelliance (cf Vulnerable World Hypothesis), hardly a libertarian position. I donât know which incidences of âsexual abuse in polyarmorous communityâ youâre referring to, but I suspect youâre 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 Bostromâs 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 donât 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 weâre maybe talking past each other. E.g. I would not classify Thielâs political views as libertarian (I think he might have been at one point, but certainly not in the last 10+ years), and Iâll 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 donât 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 âto-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians.â Usually when I think (paraphrased)âX group of people caused Yâ I donât think âX group of people have areas of interests in the vicinity of Y.â
I see where youâre 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/âauthoritarianism is not incompatible with libertarian view, and Bostrom was a an Extropian
SBFâs âproblemâ 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 âEAsâ should always be read as implicitly preceded by the word âmanyâ).
Iâd like to see more folks from across the political spectrum be happily involved in EA.
Things I donât 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/âpoliticized thinking that I strongly hope is never accepted in EA. Iâd much prefer a âbig tentâ 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 âDoing EA Lefterâ is not that Iâve anything against people trying to argue for views further left than mineâby 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 itâs 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/âSBF, but they were smaller in number, and overlooked by the community. So apologies I went too far maligning all libertarians/ânon-leftists.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. (I agree that a general advantage of having a more diverse/ââbig tentâ coalition is that different ppl/âperspectives may be more or less likely to pick up on different potential problems.)
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.
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 đą. But suffice to say, libertarian EAs shouldnât 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 âEAâ, if you get what I mean.
Hmm this seems patently false to me?[1]. Am I misunderstanding something? If not, Iâd appreciate it if people donât 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 Bostromâs academic views is that he seems too open to authoritarian survelliance (cf Vulnerable World Hypothesis), hardly a libertarian position. I donât know which incidences of âsexual abuse in polyarmorous communityâ youâre referring to, but I suspect youâre 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 Bostromâs 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 donât 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 weâre maybe talking past each other. E.g. I would not classify Thielâs political views as libertarian (I think he might have been at one point, but certainly not in the last 10+ years), and Iâll 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 âto-date, all the major EA scandals have been caused by libertarians.â Usually when I think (paraphrased)âX group of people caused Yâ I donât think âX group of people have areas of interests in the vicinity of Y.â
If anything, non-consensual redistribution is much more of a leftist thing than that of any other modern political strand?
I see where youâre 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/âauthoritarianism is not incompatible with libertarian view, and Bostrom was a an Extropian
SBFâs âproblemâ 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 âEAsâ should always be read as implicitly preceded by the word âmanyâ).
Iâd like to see more folks from across the political spectrum be happily involved in EA.
Things I donât 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/âpoliticized thinking that I strongly hope is never accepted in EA. Iâd much prefer a âbig tentâ 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 âDoing EA Lefterâ is not that Iâve anything against people trying to argue for views further left than mineâby 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 itâs 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/âSBF, but they were smaller in number, and overlooked by the community. So apologies I went too far maligning all libertarians/ânon-leftists.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. (I agree that a general advantage of having a more diverse/ââbig tentâ coalition is that different ppl/âperspectives may be more or less likely to pick up on different potential problems.)
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.