On a technical note (maybe outside the context of this conversation or comparing EA/āSJ) and a slight tangent, I think calling EA and SJ movements is useful and informative if youāre level of discourse is thinking about broad-level EA movement building. I know the phrase movement has a lot of connotations in common discourse, but I think at itās core a movement is a group of people achieving goals through collective action.
These groups of people are often tribes, and tribal ties motivates movement membership but they are distinct things.
The value of this categorization:
EA is a much more consolidated, controlled and purposeful movement than SJ. SJ is more diffuse, lacks centralization but is quite recognizable in terms of topics and kinds of discourse.
Given this diversity, appeals to broad SJ movement tend to reduce complexity of arguments (low fidelity models) that wouldnāt work well with EA high fidelity models. So I think itās useful to know this to know why we engaging with SJ on a movement level is not the ideal situation. So on that high level thinking itās probably useful to think about movements to get a big picture of the situation.
Of course, SJ (and EA) are not only movements. They are also communities, bodies of knowledge, networks etc. as you mention. These aspects feed into the structure of the movement in important ways. If your level of discourse is different (i.e. thinking about specific cases for collaboration or comparing the frameworks used by the two movements) then thinking on this level is useful.
I agree that SJ is more diffuse and less centralāI think this is one of the reasons thinking of it in terms of a movement that one might ally with is a little unnatural to me. I also agree that EA is more centralised and purposeful.
Your point that about what level of discourse suggests what kind of engagement is also a good one. I think this also links to the issue that (in my view) itās in the nature of EA that thereās a āthickā and a āthinā version of EA in terms of the people involved. Here āthickā is a movement of people who self-identify as EA and see themselves as part a strong social and intellectual community, and who are influenced by movement leaders and shapers.
Then thereās a āthinā version that includes people who might do one or multiple of the following (a) work in EA-endorsed cause areas with EA-compatible approaches (b) find EA frameworks and literature useful to draw on (among other frameworks) (c) are generally supportive of or friendly towards some or most of the goals of EA, without necessarily making EA a core part of their identity or seeing themselves as being part of a movement. With so many people who interact with EA working primarily in cause areas rather than ācentral movementā EA per se, my sense is this āthinā EA or EA-adjacent set of people is reasonably large.
It might make perfect sense for āthick EAā leaders to think of EA vs SJ in terms of movements, alliances, and competition for talent. While at the same time, this might be a less intuitive and more uncomfortable way for āthin EAā folk to see the interaction being described and playing out. While I donāt have answers, I think itās worth being mindful that there may be some tension there.
Thanks all! This is a good, useful discussion. I wanted to clarify slightly but what I mean when I say EA is the ābetterā ideology. Mainly, I mean that EA is better at guiding my actions in a way that augments my ethical impact much more than SJ does. Theyāre primarily rivalrous only insofar as I can only make a limited number of ethical deliberations per day, and EA considerations more strongly optimize for impact than SJ considerations.
On a technical note (maybe outside the context of this conversation or comparing EA/āSJ) and a slight tangent, I think calling EA and SJ movements is useful and informative if youāre level of discourse is thinking about broad-level EA movement building. I know the phrase movement has a lot of connotations in common discourse, but I think at itās core a movement is a group of people achieving goals through collective action.
These groups of people are often tribes, and tribal ties motivates movement membership but they are distinct things.
The value of this categorization: EA is a much more consolidated, controlled and purposeful movement than SJ. SJ is more diffuse, lacks centralization but is quite recognizable in terms of topics and kinds of discourse.
Given this diversity, appeals to broad SJ movement tend to reduce complexity of arguments (low fidelity models) that wouldnāt work well with EA high fidelity models. So I think itās useful to know this to know why we engaging with SJ on a movement level is not the ideal situation. So on that high level thinking itās probably useful to think about movements to get a big picture of the situation.
Of course, SJ (and EA) are not only movements. They are also communities, bodies of knowledge, networks etc. as you mention. These aspects feed into the structure of the movement in important ways. If your level of discourse is different (i.e. thinking about specific cases for collaboration or comparing the frameworks used by the two movements) then thinking on this level is useful.
Thanks Vaidehi, these are very good points.
I agree that SJ is more diffuse and less centralāI think this is one of the reasons thinking of it in terms of a movement that one might ally with is a little unnatural to me. I also agree that EA is more centralised and purposeful.
Your point that about what level of discourse suggests what kind of engagement is also a good one. I think this also links to the issue that (in my view) itās in the nature of EA that thereās a āthickā and a āthinā version of EA in terms of the people involved. Here āthickā is a movement of people who self-identify as EA and see themselves as part a strong social and intellectual community, and who are influenced by movement leaders and shapers.
Then thereās a āthinā version that includes people who might do one or multiple of the following (a) work in EA-endorsed cause areas with EA-compatible approaches (b) find EA frameworks and literature useful to draw on (among other frameworks) (c) are generally supportive of or friendly towards some or most of the goals of EA, without necessarily making EA a core part of their identity or seeing themselves as being part of a movement. With so many people who interact with EA working primarily in cause areas rather than ācentral movementā EA per se, my sense is this āthinā EA or EA-adjacent set of people is reasonably large.
It might make perfect sense for āthick EAā leaders to think of EA vs SJ in terms of movements, alliances, and competition for talent. While at the same time, this might be a less intuitive and more uncomfortable way for āthin EAā folk to see the interaction being described and playing out. While I donāt have answers, I think itās worth being mindful that there may be some tension there.
Thanks all! This is a good, useful discussion. I wanted to clarify slightly but what I mean when I say EA is the ābetterā ideology. Mainly, I mean that EA is better at guiding my actions in a way that augments my ethical impact much more than SJ does. Theyāre primarily rivalrous only insofar as I can only make a limited number of ethical deliberations per day, and EA considerations more strongly optimize for impact than SJ considerations.