I think there are lots of ways to advocate for the opportunity of effective giving without pressuring people.
Any group worried about this should reach out—we have a lot of training and resources on how to talk about giving without unduly or insensitively pressuring people.
A full answer to this would be very detailed, so do fill out our form if you’d like us share resources and tactics in more detail.
In brief, I think the main thing is to frame giving as an opportunity, rather than an obligation. There are some pretty robust arguments that it actually is an obligation, if we have disposable income in high income countries—but this tends to be less effective as a persuasion strategy and has more risks around people feeling unduly pressured.
If we talk about the incredible opportunity we have to save a life, or improve animal welfare, without really making any noticeable sacrifice in our own lives, we can inspire people to give. I don’t think we need to pressure people (e.g. by saying ‘you’re a bad person’ or ‘if you don’t do this you’re not an effective altruist’). But we can absolutely raise awareness and persuade people.
Many people, especially at universities, already have some sense that they are in a position of privilege and would like to ‘make a difference’, and for these people it’s just a case of raising their awareness—you’re actually solving a problem for them. Others can be persuaded if we highlight, for example, where the median graduating salary from a university places them in the income distribution of their home country, or indeed globally.
And I think it’s worth emphasising that we’re not saying that everyone should take a pledge that will meaningfully reduce their income—if you’re earning substantially above the median wage, it’s likely that you can give something like 1% with literally no effect at all on your material quality of life. So, again, I don’t think that explaining this framing to people is pressuring them.
Ultimately, of course, any movement seeks to persuade people—we persuade people to change career plans, or majors, or eat less meat—and persuading them to give falls within this spectrum.
Can you make the case clearer why “a group that pressures its members to give away their money” is in itself a bad thing? (Presuming we are talking about a small share of their money, let’s say 1-10%, to effective charities)
This will be hard for me to explain, but I’ll try. Please try to see what I’m pointing at even though my explanation won’t be perfect:
The way you see this sentence is “a group that pressures its members to give away [a small piece of their] money to [a good cause]”
The way a less informed person might see it is “a group that pressures its members to give away [a large amount even if a small fraction of] money to [a cause that the group claims is good]”
As a more extreme (unfair) example to emphasise what I’m talking about:
Imagine a sales person trying to convince you to buy something, and they’re telling you “it’s just a small fraction of your money!” and “this really is a really good product, check out all these reasons!”
Many people won’t even be able to sort through your arguments, the things that you understand on a gears level to be true.
I guess the share of income was a bit of a red herring. I’m more questioning “what is ‘pressures’ and what makes it bad?” The word pressures has a bad connotation but what are you actually concerned with in this context?
[As before, good question, and also I am not sure I have enough introspection ability to answer it, but I’ll try. I have a feeling Duncan Sabien would be really good at this]
Social pressure: Telling people that if they won’t do something, they’ll be rejected/outcast in a way that “hurts” in some primal way. I am not saying “never do this”. I am saying “this is a powerful weapon, use it with caution”
Getting someone to make a decision “in the heat of the moment” that the person might regret otherwise, or might not make this decision they thought about it for longer, or that some parts of the person are very much against this decision but don’t get to voice their opinion.
I apologize for using a loaded word here and hope this could become a useful comment and not something that will ruin the conversation.. but:
you give energised attendees an immediate way to take action, either by making an immediate token donation or by taking a pledge for a modest percentage of their future income
This reminds me of a specific (non EA) group I was part of, a group that many would call a cult.
Sorry again for using this word. I am trying to say something concrete+productive and it seems like dancing around it wouldn’t be useful.
Edit: I’d like to add that I think EA is currently avoiding this kind of failure mode very well
Thanks for this Yonatan and for emphasising that this is a point made in good faith.
I don’t know a lot about cults but I think those that ask people for money usually ask for it to use themselves, rather than to e.g. alleviate the suffering of farmed animals or people in extreme poverty.
There could definitely be a danger of EA becoming quite incestuous as quite a few of the recommendations above are to donate to EA orgs and so it could get to the point where we ask members of the community to fund the community.
However, there are a lot of orgs that are really very independent of EA that are heavily promoted in effective giving. ‘Meta’ giving (giving to charities that work within/on EA) is a very small slice of the pie, at least at the moment.
Finally, I would emphasise that almost all the places effective giving recommends are public charities of some sort and so open to a lot of scrutiny and transparency requirements. Again, I don’t think that’s very characteristic of cults.
Any thoughts on reasons not to promote effective giving, namely “not to become a group that pressures its members to give away their money”?
This can also happen by accident unless one is really careful, I think
I think there are lots of ways to advocate for the opportunity of effective giving without pressuring people.
Any group worried about this should reach out—we have a lot of training and resources on how to talk about giving without unduly or insensitively pressuring people.
Would you elaborate on how you’d do this? Seems not trivial to me, but it would probably change my mind
Hi Yonatan,
A full answer to this would be very detailed, so do fill out our form if you’d like us share resources and tactics in more detail.
In brief, I think the main thing is to frame giving as an opportunity, rather than an obligation. There are some pretty robust arguments that it actually is an obligation, if we have disposable income in high income countries—but this tends to be less effective as a persuasion strategy and has more risks around people feeling unduly pressured.
If we talk about the incredible opportunity we have to save a life, or improve animal welfare, without really making any noticeable sacrifice in our own lives, we can inspire people to give. I don’t think we need to pressure people (e.g. by saying ‘you’re a bad person’ or ‘if you don’t do this you’re not an effective altruist’). But we can absolutely raise awareness and persuade people.
Many people, especially at universities, already have some sense that they are in a position of privilege and would like to ‘make a difference’, and for these people it’s just a case of raising their awareness—you’re actually solving a problem for them. Others can be persuaded if we highlight, for example, where the median graduating salary from a university places them in the income distribution of their home country, or indeed globally.
And I think it’s worth emphasising that we’re not saying that everyone should take a pledge that will meaningfully reduce their income—if you’re earning substantially above the median wage, it’s likely that you can give something like 1% with literally no effect at all on your material quality of life. So, again, I don’t think that explaining this framing to people is pressuring them.
Ultimately, of course, any movement seeks to persuade people—we persuade people to change career plans, or majors, or eat less meat—and persuading them to give falls within this spectrum.
This seems healthy to me
(as far as my opinion matters)
Thank you for elaborating
Maybe I’m missing something here.
Can you make the case clearer why “a group that pressures its members to give away their money” is in itself a bad thing? (Presuming we are talking about a small share of their money, let’s say 1-10%, to effective charities)
Nice question!
This will be hard for me to explain, but I’ll try. Please try to see what I’m pointing at even though my explanation won’t be perfect:
The way you see this sentence is “a group that pressures its members to give away [a small piece of their] money to [a good cause]”
The way a less informed person might see it is “a group that pressures its members to give away [a large amount even if a small fraction of] money to [a cause that the group claims is good]”
As a more extreme (unfair) example to emphasise what I’m talking about:
Imagine a sales person trying to convince you to buy something, and they’re telling you “it’s just a small fraction of your money!” and “this really is a really good product, check out all these reasons!”
Many people won’t even be able to sort through your arguments, the things that you understand on a gears level to be true.
What do you think?
I guess the share of income was a bit of a red herring. I’m more questioning “what is ‘pressures’ and what makes it bad?” The word pressures has a bad connotation but what are you actually concerned with in this context?
[As before, good question, and also I am not sure I have enough introspection ability to answer it, but I’ll try. I have a feeling Duncan Sabien would be really good at this]
Social pressure: Telling people that if they won’t do something, they’ll be rejected/outcast in a way that “hurts” in some primal way. I am not saying “never do this”. I am saying “this is a powerful weapon, use it with caution”
Getting someone to make a decision “in the heat of the moment” that the person might regret otherwise, or might not make this decision they thought about it for longer, or that some parts of the person are very much against this decision but don’t get to voice their opinion.
I apologize for using a loaded word here and hope this could become a useful comment and not something that will ruin the conversation.. but:
This reminds me of a specific (non EA) group I was part of, a group that many would call a cult.
Sorry again for using this word. I am trying to say something concrete+productive and it seems like dancing around it wouldn’t be useful.
Edit: I’d like to add that I think EA is currently avoiding this kind of failure mode very well
Thanks for this Yonatan and for emphasising that this is a point made in good faith.
I don’t know a lot about cults but I think those that ask people for money usually ask for it to use themselves, rather than to e.g. alleviate the suffering of farmed animals or people in extreme poverty.
There could definitely be a danger of EA becoming quite incestuous as quite a few of the recommendations above are to donate to EA orgs and so it could get to the point where we ask members of the community to fund the community.
However, there are a lot of orgs that are really very independent of EA that are heavily promoted in effective giving. ‘Meta’ giving (giving to charities that work within/on EA) is a very small slice of the pie, at least at the moment.
Finally, I would emphasise that almost all the places effective giving recommends are public charities of some sort and so open to a lot of scrutiny and transparency requirements. Again, I don’t think that’s very characteristic of cults.
I agree this strongly distinguishes EA , I like how you formalized it