I have not publicized my support of Effective Altruism at this point due to a fear of appearing arrogant.
One could argue that this applies as well to any altruistic or charitable movement but that isn’t true: with EA there is also the tacit and easily verbalized assumption that my method of charitable giving is more effective than and thus superior to other people’s, and that I’m therefore not only more generous but also more edified and generally intelligent than proponents of Ineffective Altruism, of which there are legion.
An example: I was considering posting a comment on the Facebook thread dealing with this same issue. I didn’t because I knew my friends would see it.
Another example: I originally liked the EA Facebook page in the dead of night, when the least number of friends would be likely to see it. A calculation on my part.
I’ve had conversations about EA with a few people to whom I’m very close, and responses have been mixed-to-positive so far, but I cannot see myself broadcasting my stance in regards this issue in any public forum.
From a grassroots/proselytization perspective, I seriously doubt that I am in a marginal minority when it comes to this qualm. I’m surprised to have not seen this criticism in the post above but would be happy to know that I am in a marginal minority on this issue. Since people telling other people about EA is ahem useful to the movement, I see this as an important and inhibiting issue that has, for better and worse, been hardboiled into the name and concept.
Full disclosure: below, I endorse the actions of the foundation called Charity Science, which is run by personal friends of mine, which is an issue aside from what would be my otherwise detached admiration of their work.
I have not publicized my support of Effective Altruism at this point due to a fear of appearing arrogant.
My support of effective altruism isn’t very publicized yet, either, for this reason. Actually, I’m not only afraid of appearing arrogant, but also I don’t want to push ideas on others that I’m also afraid really are arrogant. That is, if my friends pointed out the arrogance of effective altruism, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they were right about that. On the other hand, this fear may be more due to shame than humility. I might be afraid of looking too weird, and arrogant, but learning that sooner rather than later if it’s rightly so I’m pursuing wrong ideas, I’d be wasting less time on them. Temporary embarrassment may be a small price to pay for learning a hard and proper lesson to not waste my time trying to do good on the wrong sort of lifestyle or activism.
Peter Hurford has achieved relative success in direct research efforts, movement coordination, earning to give, and career decisions, among supporters of effective altruism. As far as I can tell, he is quite public with his support of effective altruism. However, he’s engaged in other intellectual endeavors, sometimes criticizes effective altruism, and may court outside criticism from his social network as well. Additionally, in the past he’s expressed an aversion to public-facing activism (at least off the Internet), e.g., leafleting for animal rights or veganism, and other causes. This is despite the fact that he supports animal welfare, and other causes embraced by effective altruism. I’m not aware if his aversion to activism directed toward strangers is for the same reasons that you and I don’t publicize our support of effective altruism generally.
I publicize my support of effective altruism by sharing links on the subject I like on social media, by bringing up object-level causes within effective altruism, e.g., the Against Malaria Foundation, and spreading ideas by word of mouth among friends. Charity Science is an organization which runs fundraisers. Moreover, they act as an online donation portal which coordinates and allows individuals to run their own fundraisers, for their birthdays or Christmas. Peter Hurford is one such individual who’s been quite successful. Of course, even if it seems too stressful or presumptuous to cast a net as wide as Mr. Hurford did, one can experiment by sending emails only to closer friends and family who you feel won’t react harshly to such a request. This may be one way of expanding a comfort zone with effective altruism, while also raising money.
From a grassroots/proselytization perspective, I seriously doubt that I am in a marginal minority when it comes to this qualm. I’m surprised to have not seen this criticism in the post above but would be happy to know that I am in a marginal minority on this issue. Since people telling other people about EA is ahem useful to the movement, I see this as an important and inhibiting issue that has, for better and worse, been hardboiled into the name and concept.
Agreed. This strikes me as substantial enough of a concern that it could merit a couple of questions in the next effective altruism survey. I know Tom Ash, the fellow who ran the survery this year, so I’ll ask him about it.
Another example: I originally liked the EA Facebook page in the dead of night, when the least number of friends would be likely to see it. A calculation on my part.
If your friends would be that opposed, just don’t like the page! Page likes just aren’t valuable enough to cause you distress. Their main value is broadcasting to your friends anyway.
Sanctimony.
I have not publicized my support of Effective Altruism at this point due to a fear of appearing arrogant.
One could argue that this applies as well to any altruistic or charitable movement but that isn’t true: with EA there is also the tacit and easily verbalized assumption that my method of charitable giving is more effective than and thus superior to other people’s, and that I’m therefore not only more generous but also more edified and generally intelligent than proponents of Ineffective Altruism, of which there are legion.
An example: I was considering posting a comment on the Facebook thread dealing with this same issue. I didn’t because I knew my friends would see it.
Another example: I originally liked the EA Facebook page in the dead of night, when the least number of friends would be likely to see it. A calculation on my part.
I’ve had conversations about EA with a few people to whom I’m very close, and responses have been mixed-to-positive so far, but I cannot see myself broadcasting my stance in regards this issue in any public forum.
From a grassroots/proselytization perspective, I seriously doubt that I am in a marginal minority when it comes to this qualm. I’m surprised to have not seen this criticism in the post above but would be happy to know that I am in a marginal minority on this issue. Since people telling other people about EA is ahem useful to the movement, I see this as an important and inhibiting issue that has, for better and worse, been hardboiled into the name and concept.
Full disclosure: below, I endorse the actions of the foundation called Charity Science, which is run by personal friends of mine, which is an issue aside from what would be my otherwise detached admiration of their work.
My support of effective altruism isn’t very publicized yet, either, for this reason. Actually, I’m not only afraid of appearing arrogant, but also I don’t want to push ideas on others that I’m also afraid really are arrogant. That is, if my friends pointed out the arrogance of effective altruism, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they were right about that. On the other hand, this fear may be more due to shame than humility. I might be afraid of looking too weird, and arrogant, but learning that sooner rather than later if it’s rightly so I’m pursuing wrong ideas, I’d be wasting less time on them. Temporary embarrassment may be a small price to pay for learning a hard and proper lesson to not waste my time trying to do good on the wrong sort of lifestyle or activism.
Peter Hurford has achieved relative success in direct research efforts, movement coordination, earning to give, and career decisions, among supporters of effective altruism. As far as I can tell, he is quite public with his support of effective altruism. However, he’s engaged in other intellectual endeavors, sometimes criticizes effective altruism, and may court outside criticism from his social network as well. Additionally, in the past he’s expressed an aversion to public-facing activism (at least off the Internet), e.g., leafleting for animal rights or veganism, and other causes. This is despite the fact that he supports animal welfare, and other causes embraced by effective altruism. I’m not aware if his aversion to activism directed toward strangers is for the same reasons that you and I don’t publicize our support of effective altruism generally.
I publicize my support of effective altruism by sharing links on the subject I like on social media, by bringing up object-level causes within effective altruism, e.g., the Against Malaria Foundation, and spreading ideas by word of mouth among friends. Charity Science is an organization which runs fundraisers. Moreover, they act as an online donation portal which coordinates and allows individuals to run their own fundraisers, for their birthdays or Christmas. Peter Hurford is one such individual who’s been quite successful. Of course, even if it seems too stressful or presumptuous to cast a net as wide as Mr. Hurford did, one can experiment by sending emails only to closer friends and family who you feel won’t react harshly to such a request. This may be one way of expanding a comfort zone with effective altruism, while also raising money.
Agreed. This strikes me as substantial enough of a concern that it could merit a couple of questions in the next effective altruism survey. I know Tom Ash, the fellow who ran the survery this year, so I’ll ask him about it.
If your friends would be that opposed, just don’t like the page! Page likes just aren’t valuable enough to cause you distress. Their main value is broadcasting to your friends anyway.