I like this idea. I do wonder to what extent EA is implemented more as a field-building exercise, getting others to act on their previously determined conclusions, rather than promoting the self-determination of individuals through education on rationality, epistemics, and philosophy to guide action.
As someone who has first-hand experience with many points mentioned in the post: I can say that the current state of college-level EA groups is fairly limited to theoretical conduct rather than actions. I can guess that there might be multiple reasons, but I can mention some that I have personally observed:
IRL College studies sometimes hardly align with EA values, especially for students in technical and business institutions.
Most scholars prefer studying doing good for an extended period. The rest of the time is saved for studying their original streams.
The common and foremost goal[1] for college EA groups is organizing events for reading and discussion of just resources(posts and blogs). IRL EA college groups are typical Whatsapp groups serving as crossposting events, that’s all. There may be opportunities present locally, but typically. college students can’t afford to get involved at the student level.
College students are often surrounded by substantially large groups of non-EA people.
I’m not entirely sure whether your point here is in agreement or disagreement with my previous statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you’re saying something along the lines of:
“students aren’t taking immediate action and are only going over theory, thus the community building efforts focused on theory must be open-minded and don’t represent field building”
If that’s the case, I don’t see the complete logic of how because it ‘can’ work out that way that it ‘must’, and the ambiguity is what I’m focused on and would like more evidence on. Success metrics in my experience or uni groups particularly focus on participation rather than depth/retention of engagement.
I agree with the proposal of University groups as impact-driven truth-seeking teams and mentioned a few of my observations corresponding to your comment. Of course, it can work out. I tried to think about some of the reasons behind the same ambiguity you mentioned. It is just my two cents. I, too, consider the importance of participation above all.
I like this idea. I do wonder to what extent EA is implemented more as a field-building exercise, getting others to act on their previously determined conclusions, rather than promoting the self-determination of individuals through education on rationality, epistemics, and philosophy to guide action.
As someone who has first-hand experience with many points mentioned in the post: I can say that the current state of college-level EA groups is fairly limited to theoretical conduct rather than actions. I can guess that there might be multiple reasons, but I can mention some that I have personally observed:
IRL College studies sometimes hardly align with EA values, especially for students in technical and business institutions.
Most scholars prefer studying doing good for an extended period. The rest of the time is saved for studying their original streams.
The common and foremost goal[1] for college EA groups is organizing events for reading and discussion of just resources(posts and blogs). IRL EA college groups are typical Whatsapp groups serving as crossposting events, that’s all. There may be opportunities present locally, but typically. college students can’t afford to get involved at the student level.
College students are often surrounded by substantially large groups of non-EA people.
First-hand experience.
I’m not entirely sure whether your point here is in agreement or disagreement with my previous statement. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you’re saying something along the lines of:
“students aren’t taking immediate action and are only going over theory, thus the community building efforts focused on theory must be open-minded and don’t represent field building”
If that’s the case, I don’t see the complete logic of how because it ‘can’ work out that way that it ‘must’, and the ambiguity is what I’m focused on and would like more evidence on. Success metrics in my experience or uni groups particularly focus on participation rather than depth/retention of engagement.
I agree with the proposal of University groups as impact-driven truth-seeking teams and mentioned a few of my observations corresponding to your comment. Of course, it can work out. I tried to think about some of the reasons behind the same ambiguity you mentioned. It is just my two cents. I, too, consider the importance of participation above all.