Error

Thanks for posting this, Nick. I’m interested in how you plan to run this course. Are you the course coordinator? Is there an academic advisor? Who are the intended guest lecturers and how would they work? Who are the intended students?

I looked at that article because i saw that a ‘self designed course’ was also possible which would also have some supervision --the kind of thing I like, and also to see what the curricula was, where it was, and if it had an online ‘MOOC’ style or distance learning version. I noticed its at Brown, where i went, and see you can even course credit for taking the course—at Brown i did partially self-design a few courses which had supervisors or ‘mentors’, but wish i had done designed my entire major rather than take the ‘easy route’ and just take a predesigned one . I ended up taking alot of courses I would have taken anyway, but as result my credential actually makes it look like I prepared for a field i actually studied relatively little and prepared me for jobs i neither want nor am qualified for. Oh well. I’m somewhat familar with most topics (since they are in the EA literature i’ve read, and discussed elsewhere as well).

MOst likely this isn’t for me even if logicstics existed. I would probably would want a self-designed EA course, and perhaps might ot even call it EA. I’ll add some comments anyway.

My favorite source on EA is the one about ′ prospecting for gold’ by Owen-Barrett ( video) --mentioned above. The Atlantic article by Derek Thompson did not impress me (nor does the Atlantic in general for similar reasons). I’ve seen a few papers mostly in economics which were mathematically interesting , and like alot of EA stuff overlap with discussions by people who don’t identify as EAs—though in their work, donations, or life some would also basically say they try to figure out how to allocate resources to help others the most. Others just do research in math, physics, etc. similar to that done by EAs. (Its possible that is EA, because for some people research is their most useful contribution.)

For others it can art, family, education, even if EAs dont tend to mention those as causes.)

I’m not sure I consider myself an EA because while I agree in part with their methodology—eg Impact/​neglectedness/​Tractability criteria --and some of their reccomendations (best charities) alot of what I see I am not sure about (and wonder if one can even call it a part of ‘effective altruism’ if it appears that its not a good use of resources (including time) to even discuss these things—it might be an ‘innective use of time’. Some EA people seem to come up with view completely opposite to mine)

Sometimes EA appears to be more like a cult or religion with its own language and theology. Of course often different religions coexist and share similar goals, and permit visitors from outside the faith. Thats what i may be.

I come many times to different conclusions about cause prioritization, and some causes i think are important are basically ignored or ‘neglected’ in my opinion. I also think the INT formalism, while a first start, is ‘underspecified’ and may lead to ‘poorly posed problems’ (and priority rankings) , which is why I often disagree with what i see on EA.

(This is common in sciences of courses—people can use same scientific method and come to different conclusions—sometimes this means one scientific field basically splits into 2 or more. I could see this happening with EA as well, if it hasn’t already.

I’ve never posted anything but comments on EA sites—some of which got many—votes, while others got a few + votes—and I wonder what would happen if i did post my own article. I sometimes wonder if some of these ‘- votes’ are part of a ‘vendetta’. I’m in a science online group which has a few members with ‘extreme’ views (eg are far right’ in politics, ‘global warming denialists’, people who think “einstein was wrong’, etc.---basically ‘cranks’ or ideologues who do not belong in a science group) who will post a negative reply anytime these issues are discussed by people with mainstream scientific views, or are perceived as ‘leftists’.

Other times scientists with somewhat old but mainstream views will sort of try to make anyone discussing less mainstream and newer ideas which they don’t like, look like they don’t know what they are talking about, and the issues are settled. (These are usually ‘arguments from authority’ , and are a form of gatekeeping, and can be effective at maintaining authority—people with less knowledge will tend to believe them.

Most likely if I had or was in a ‘GISP’ it might have as a curricula 1/​3rd of what is in the above one (the other 2/​3rds would be viewed as supplementary material for people who time and interest), and 2/​3rds other things, mostly in math/​logic, social science (including semiotics) and complexity theory—though avoiding getting too deep into technical details because its easy to get stuck on an intractable problem, and hence become paralyzed. (I view those as most useful for figuring out what is ‘effective’. ) Ideally it would have arts, political, and applied education aspects (ie ‘each one teach one’—a ‘community service ’ requirement) but in a sense these can be included informally or implicitly. An ideal GISP would have a mix of people with different histories, competencies and interests.