Second, tactical downsides of promoting giving seem to be overlooked.
I was a little surprised to see no acknowledgement of downsides, although maybe I missed it. I think there are several likely and significant downsides:
Opportunity costs:
Time and attention (of potential group members, active group members, and organizers) are scarce.
Running or attending a giving game often replaces running or attending a career planning workshop.
Many people lack the time or attention to develop a nuanced understanding of what groups do, and there’s anecdotally already a meme of “EA is all about effective giving.” So a group that tries to emphasize both effective giving and effective careers will often be rounded off as just being about the former.
Social capital (of group organizers) is scarce.
Many people’s altruism is probably scarce? (Maybe it can grow, but if that takes time, it suggests not emphasizing many asks from the beginning.)
Giving-focused groups have lower appeal than careers-focused groups, in a university context:
(University groups are a very significant special case of these groups, since they’re a large fraction of EA groups and are arguably unusually high-leveraged.)
Anecdotally, students seem much more excited about careers-focused pitches than about other kinds of pitches. (Presumably this is because many of them are very confused about what to do with their careers and are desperate for high-quality support.)
Many students have low, zero, or negative incomes, so they often don’t see giving as all that accessible.
In many universities, students’ political or political-adjacent views (e.g., about billionaires having too much influence, or about the importance of systemic change, or about white saviors, etc.) make some students highly skeptical of charity. So a group that very strongly emphasizes giving will be less appealing to these people (and, by social influence, to their friends) than a group with a different emphasis.
In the survey mentioned earlier, 80,000 Hours came out as the top listed contributor to people getting involved.
Group norms costs: given that career choice is (arguably) typically much more consequential than donations choices, very strongly emphasizing the latter may undermine the group norm of prioritizing what matters most.
I was just about to make a list of downsides but you did it for me! I agree it’s not a false choice, and at the city level can be incorporated well into programming. But my main beef with heavy programming and norms is that giving is actually what made me disengage with the community many years ago and I only re-engaged because of its renewed focus on careers/more of a feeling of movement. A bunch of people randomly coming together and donating their money isn’t as compelling when they lack coordination about who’s giving what and where. I don’t see a bunch of giving folks networking with other giving folks about where they’re donating or coordinated efforts on this. But I DO see career folks trying to actively figure out where the career bottlenecks are and funnel people into those positions. I suppose career building feels much more like a team sport and giving feels more like getting a bunch of people together who enjoy solitaire. Which is fine and which has a place!
But I think giving programming is fact dependent and makes more sense for different demographics and at different times than others. A city like New York or London probably has a lot of people who have careers they like and don’t want to switch but are interested in EA. The number of such people (along with how old most people in the city are) should drive giving programming. I agree that giving at unis is much trickier.
I also highly value EA becoming accessible to low-income folks, and as someone who was low-income, the giving programming at my uni group is what emphatically made me disengage with the community for a few years. I felt like the people were naive and insensitive to low-income realities or it just wasn’t a space meant for low-income people. I only came back because of longtermism. I don’t think this is something a training can solve. So main point: incorporation of giving is good but highly fact-dependent and downsides should be considered.
Thanks for this Bridges, and I’m sorry you had a negative experience with giving. It’s definitely a positive that EA has broader programming now and I agree that there is a real danger of alienating people who come from less affluent backgrounds. I’m really delighted that you’ve found a way back to EA now :-)
A couple of points: I’m not sure I agree that giving isn’t a team sport—Giving What We Can and One for the World both see a lot of engagement in our communities, from meet ups to webinars to socials.
I think our point is that it’s a shame to neglect giving entirely. As you say, it can often be part of the menu of EA without significant costs to other aspects; and while you were really inspired by longtermism and careers advice, thousands of people have presumably been inspired by Giving What We Can and One for the World when they’ve taken our pledges.
There seems to be good counter-evidence that talking to students about giving isn’t a good idea at all—it’s been done successfully in so many places for so long within EA and in so many other social movements. Tactics like future-dated donations, pledges that don’t start immediately or focussing on trivial amounts while you’re still studying can all help. But doing this sensitively is really important and that’s part of why we’re trying to offer training and resources!
Anyway, in summary, I’m really pleased you’re back in EA; and I hope we can mitigate these risks well going forward.
[Part 2 of my original comment]
Second, tactical downsides of promoting giving seem to be overlooked.
I was a little surprised to see no acknowledgement of downsides, although maybe I missed it. I think there are several likely and significant downsides:
Opportunity costs:
Time and attention (of potential group members, active group members, and organizers) are scarce.
Running or attending a giving game often replaces running or attending a career planning workshop.
Many people lack the time or attention to develop a nuanced understanding of what groups do, and there’s anecdotally already a meme of “EA is all about effective giving.” So a group that tries to emphasize both effective giving and effective careers will often be rounded off as just being about the former.
Social capital (of group organizers) is scarce.
Many people’s altruism is probably scarce? (Maybe it can grow, but if that takes time, it suggests not emphasizing many asks from the beginning.)
Giving-focused groups have lower appeal than careers-focused groups, in a university context:
(University groups are a very significant special case of these groups, since they’re a large fraction of EA groups and are arguably unusually high-leveraged.)
Anecdotally, students seem much more excited about careers-focused pitches than about other kinds of pitches. (Presumably this is because many of them are very confused about what to do with their careers and are desperate for high-quality support.)
Many students have low, zero, or negative incomes, so they often don’t see giving as all that accessible.
In many universities, students’ political or political-adjacent views (e.g., about billionaires having too much influence, or about the importance of systemic change, or about white saviors, etc.) make some students highly skeptical of charity. So a group that very strongly emphasizes giving will be less appealing to these people (and, by social influence, to their friends) than a group with a different emphasis.
In the survey mentioned earlier, 80,000 Hours came out as the top listed contributor to people getting involved.
Group norms costs: given that career choice is (arguably) typically much more consequential than donations choices, very strongly emphasizing the latter may undermine the group norm of prioritizing what matters most.
I was just about to make a list of downsides but you did it for me! I agree it’s not a false choice, and at the city level can be incorporated well into programming. But my main beef with heavy programming and norms is that giving is actually what made me disengage with the community many years ago and I only re-engaged because of its renewed focus on careers/more of a feeling of movement. A bunch of people randomly coming together and donating their money isn’t as compelling when they lack coordination about who’s giving what and where. I don’t see a bunch of giving folks networking with other giving folks about where they’re donating or coordinated efforts on this. But I DO see career folks trying to actively figure out where the career bottlenecks are and funnel people into those positions. I suppose career building feels much more like a team sport and giving feels more like getting a bunch of people together who enjoy solitaire. Which is fine and which has a place!
But I think giving programming is fact dependent and makes more sense for different demographics and at different times than others. A city like New York or London probably has a lot of people who have careers they like and don’t want to switch but are interested in EA. The number of such people (along with how old most people in the city are) should drive giving programming. I agree that giving at unis is much trickier.
I also highly value EA becoming accessible to low-income folks, and as someone who was low-income, the giving programming at my uni group is what emphatically made me disengage with the community for a few years. I felt like the people were naive and insensitive to low-income realities or it just wasn’t a space meant for low-income people. I only came back because of longtermism. I don’t think this is something a training can solve. So main point: incorporation of giving is good but highly fact-dependent and downsides should be considered.
Thanks for this Bridges, and I’m sorry you had a negative experience with giving. It’s definitely a positive that EA has broader programming now and I agree that there is a real danger of alienating people who come from less affluent backgrounds. I’m really delighted that you’ve found a way back to EA now :-)
A couple of points: I’m not sure I agree that giving isn’t a team sport—Giving What We Can and One for the World both see a lot of engagement in our communities, from meet ups to webinars to socials.
I think our point is that it’s a shame to neglect giving entirely. As you say, it can often be part of the menu of EA without significant costs to other aspects; and while you were really inspired by longtermism and careers advice, thousands of people have presumably been inspired by Giving What We Can and One for the World when they’ve taken our pledges.
There seems to be good counter-evidence that talking to students about giving isn’t a good idea at all—it’s been done successfully in so many places for so long within EA and in so many other social movements. Tactics like future-dated donations, pledges that don’t start immediately or focussing on trivial amounts while you’re still studying can all help. But doing this sensitively is really important and that’s part of why we’re trying to offer training and resources!
Anyway, in summary, I’m really pleased you’re back in EA; and I hope we can mitigate these risks well going forward.