To embrace EA, you need to believe that at least some of its flagship organizations and leaders—80,000 Hours, Will MacAskill, Giving What We Can, etc.—are both well-intentioned and capable. Importantly, many skeptics leap straight to this “top of the trunk,” accusing EA groups of corruption or undue influence (e.g., “Open Philanthropy takes dirty billionaire money”).
While those concerns deserve a thoughtful debate, they should come after someone already agrees that (i) helping strangers matters, (ii) doing more good is better than doing a little, and (iii) we can meaningfully compare different interventions. In other words, don’t let institutional distrust be the very first deal-breaker—focus on the roots before you tackle the branches.
I don’t quite follow the logic here. Your first paragraph seems to acknowledge that some degree of institutional trust is part of the trunk rather than merely the branches, but the end of the second paragraph characterizes it as a branches issue.
I’d agree that institutional trust is in a sense less foundational than “root” issues like altruism and effectiveness, but being less foundational does not imply it is less practically critical to reach the end result. If A and B and C and D are all practically essential to reach any of E through H, it’s reasonable for someone who is being invited in to start with whichever of A-D they think is weakest out of respect for their time.
As an aside, if one goes so far as to say that EA as currently constituted doesn’t have anything meaningful to offer to those who do not “believe that at least some of its flagship organizations and leaders—80,000 Hours, Will MacAskill, Giving What We Can, etc.—are both well-intentioned and capable,” [1] then maybe that is a signal something is wrong.
That’s a mistake, thanks for pointing it out! That final sentence wasn’t meant to stay in. That is, I think institutional trust is part of the trunk and not the branches.
I agree with your side point that there are some ideas & tools within EA that many would find useful even while rejecting all of the EA institutions.
Institutional Trust
I don’t quite follow the logic here. Your first paragraph seems to acknowledge that some degree of institutional trust is part of the trunk rather than merely the branches, but the end of the second paragraph characterizes it as a branches issue.
I’d agree that institutional trust is in a sense less foundational than “root” issues like altruism and effectiveness, but being less foundational does not imply it is less practically critical to reach the end result. If A and B and C and D are all practically essential to reach any of E through H, it’s reasonable for someone who is being invited in to start with whichever of A-D they think is weakest out of respect for their time.
As an aside, if one goes so far as to say that EA as currently constituted doesn’t have anything meaningful to offer to those who do not “believe that at least some of its flagship organizations and leaders—80,000 Hours, Will MacAskill, Giving What We Can, etc.—are both well-intentioned and capable,” [1] then maybe that is a signal something is wrong.
This is further along than your statement that this belief is necessary to “embrace” EA, so I don’t want to imply that it is your view.
That’s a mistake, thanks for pointing it out! That final sentence wasn’t meant to stay in. That is, I think institutional trust is part of the trunk and not the branches.
I agree with your side point that there are some ideas & tools within EA that many would find useful even while rejecting all of the EA institutions.