(First up: You’ve done a great job on podcasts and presentations too! Would love for you to share what you’ve learned below. Would also any other comments/perspectives from other readers.)
Thanks Johannes for the question (especially because I’m keen on helping people to advocate and communicate more)!
While it is true that I think about it a lot, I’ve gotta say that we have definitely not not figured this out, and that really keeps me up at night. I think we (me personally, GWWC specifically, and EA in general) are a long way from being exceptional at communicating EA ideas.
For example, a tension often exists between sparking initial interest, where intriguing, counterintuitive concepts like earning to give tend to shine, and cultivating deep understanding, which is often best achieved via a Socratic style of discourse — engaging individuals on their terms and building upon shared values. There’s a similar tension between conveying depth nuance verses simple repeatable ideas.
Off the top of my head, here’s some advice that might seem kinda simple and obvious but is often easy to forget:
Tell stories: Human brains are wired to resonate with stories. Stories help us form connections, remember information, and stimulate our imagination. Rather than just presenting raw data, embedding that information in a story makes it more palatable and memorable.
Make it feel real: Abstract ideas can sometimes feel distant and intangible. To bridge this gap, use vivid examples that people can easily picture. If you’re talking about the importance of clean water, don’t just mention statistics about disease — paint a picture of a day in the life of a child who now has access to clean water thanks to an effective intervention.
Meet people where they are and know your audience: It’s essential to understand the perspective of your audience — their beliefs, values, and pre-existing knowledge. Starting from common ground helps foster a sense of connection and understanding. Recognise their feelings, validate their concerns, and acknowledge the motivations behind their views. By connecting EA principles with concepts they’re already familiar with, you make your conversation more engaging and meaningful.
Be warm and open: An approachable, receptive demeanour invites more constructive dialogue. Nobody appreciates a know-it-all attitude. Be open to learning from others and show genuine interest in their ideas. If they feel like you’re the kind of person they could reach out to after the interaction then they’ll be more likely too continue thinking about it , act on it, and maybe eventually reach out. Plus the warm glow of you will transfer onto the ideas you share. If you’re abrasive or dismissive you poison the way they’ll feel to the ideas you’re trying to convey.
Spend weirdness points wisely: A dash of counterintuitive thinking can spark curiosity. Concepts that are unconventional or counterintuitive can draw attention and stimulate discussion. However, it’s important to use this sparingly as you can easily overwhelm or alienate your audience.
Your job isn’t to convert: This is a crucial perspective to maintain. It’s not your goal to convert people instantly into effective altruists, or to make them agree with every point of the philosophy. Rather, your aim is to introduce the ideas thoughtfully and generate curiosity. Encourage them to explore further in a manner that resonates with (while still sufficiently challenges) their existing interests and values. The goal is to foster understanding and respect, not to win a debate or compel immediate agreement. Remember, people often need time and their own personal journey to fully embrace new ideas. Plus, we’re likely wrong about a bunch of stuff too, so there’s that 😅
One worry I have with communications in the EA community lies in how we seem to have become worse at memetics. Although our capacity for rigorous analysis and self-criticism is vital, it sometimes hampers the ‘memetic value’, or shareability, of our narratives. We were initially adept at using compelling memorable examples, like the differences in impact of interventions from the Disease Control Priorities Project (DCP3) or the PlayPumps story, to effectively communicate EA ideas. However, as time passed, a combination of seeking precision/accuracy and probably an element of boredom with familiar narratives (“Oh no, not PlayPumps AGAIN”) has led us to sideline these effective stories. In our pursuit of precision and novelty, we risk losing the power of having strong memetics that people will repeat for us, narratives that have proven their value in conveying the principles of effective altruism.
I’d like to see us find good memetics that meet our quality standards and tend to be received well-understood and repeatable… then keep using them again and again and again until the general public take on an EA mindset by osmosis. We’re currently in the later stages of a hiring round for a research communicator and I’m looking forward to working with them (alongside our research team, marketing team, and product team) on finding more things that’ll work!
As a side note, I think we could also do with a bit of ritual such as the way we open events and the way we schedule our year. Back when EA Sydney used to open events with a reminder of community norms (like “high integrity”) I think I worried less about having low integrity people in the community, when every January the community organised around GWWC’s pledge drive there was a “moment” for many people who were just looking for a nudge. On that note, it’s a pity that Meta kinda killed Giving Tuesday’s matching program which for a while had some organising momentum.
(Yikes, I thought this would be a short comment, clearly I have some views here 😅).
As one of the people thinking most about how to communicate EA ideas, what have you learned / can you share with us as wisdom?
(First up: You’ve done a great job on podcasts and presentations too! Would love for you to share what you’ve learned below. Would also any other comments/perspectives from other readers.)
Thanks Johannes for the question (especially because I’m keen on helping people to advocate and communicate more)!
While it is true that I think about it a lot, I’ve gotta say that we have definitely not not figured this out, and that really keeps me up at night. I think we (me personally, GWWC specifically, and EA in general) are a long way from being exceptional at communicating EA ideas.
For example, a tension often exists between sparking initial interest, where intriguing, counterintuitive concepts like earning to give tend to shine, and cultivating deep understanding, which is often best achieved via a Socratic style of discourse — engaging individuals on their terms and building upon shared values. There’s a similar tension between conveying depth nuance verses simple repeatable ideas.
I worked with Geetanjali Basarkod and Matti Wilks (with more help from others) on this guide to talking about effective altruism and effective giving which goes into great detail and also leverages research.
Off the top of my head, here’s some advice that might seem kinda simple and obvious but is often easy to forget:
Tell stories: Human brains are wired to resonate with stories. Stories help us form connections, remember information, and stimulate our imagination. Rather than just presenting raw data, embedding that information in a story makes it more palatable and memorable.
Make it feel real: Abstract ideas can sometimes feel distant and intangible. To bridge this gap, use vivid examples that people can easily picture. If you’re talking about the importance of clean water, don’t just mention statistics about disease — paint a picture of a day in the life of a child who now has access to clean water thanks to an effective intervention.
Meet people where they are and know your audience: It’s essential to understand the perspective of your audience — their beliefs, values, and pre-existing knowledge. Starting from common ground helps foster a sense of connection and understanding. Recognise their feelings, validate their concerns, and acknowledge the motivations behind their views. By connecting EA principles with concepts they’re already familiar with, you make your conversation more engaging and meaningful.
Be warm and open: An approachable, receptive demeanour invites more constructive dialogue. Nobody appreciates a know-it-all attitude. Be open to learning from others and show genuine interest in their ideas. If they feel like you’re the kind of person they could reach out to after the interaction then they’ll be more likely too continue thinking about it , act on it, and maybe eventually reach out. Plus the warm glow of you will transfer onto the ideas you share. If you’re abrasive or dismissive you poison the way they’ll feel to the ideas you’re trying to convey.
Spend weirdness points wisely: A dash of counterintuitive thinking can spark curiosity. Concepts that are unconventional or counterintuitive can draw attention and stimulate discussion. However, it’s important to use this sparingly as you can easily overwhelm or alienate your audience.
Your job isn’t to convert: This is a crucial perspective to maintain. It’s not your goal to convert people instantly into effective altruists, or to make them agree with every point of the philosophy. Rather, your aim is to introduce the ideas thoughtfully and generate curiosity. Encourage them to explore further in a manner that resonates with (while still sufficiently challenges) their existing interests and values. The goal is to foster understanding and respect, not to win a debate or compel immediate agreement. Remember, people often need time and their own personal journey to fully embrace new ideas. Plus, we’re likely wrong about a bunch of stuff too, so there’s that 😅
One worry I have with communications in the EA community lies in how we seem to have become worse at memetics. Although our capacity for rigorous analysis and self-criticism is vital, it sometimes hampers the ‘memetic value’, or shareability, of our narratives. We were initially adept at using compelling memorable examples, like the differences in impact of interventions from the Disease Control Priorities Project (DCP3) or the PlayPumps story, to effectively communicate EA ideas. However, as time passed, a combination of seeking precision/accuracy and probably an element of boredom with familiar narratives (“Oh no, not PlayPumps AGAIN”) has led us to sideline these effective stories. In our pursuit of precision and novelty, we risk losing the power of having strong memetics that people will repeat for us, narratives that have proven their value in conveying the principles of effective altruism.
I’d like to see us find good memetics that meet our quality standards and tend to be received well-understood and repeatable… then keep using them again and again and again until the general public take on an EA mindset by osmosis. We’re currently in the later stages of a hiring round for a research communicator and I’m looking forward to working with them (alongside our research team, marketing team, and product team) on finding more things that’ll work!
As a side note, I think we could also do with a bit of ritual such as the way we open events and the way we schedule our year. Back when EA Sydney used to open events with a reminder of community norms (like “high integrity”) I think I worried less about having low integrity people in the community, when every January the community organised around GWWC’s pledge drive there was a “moment” for many people who were just looking for a nudge. On that note, it’s a pity that Meta kinda killed Giving Tuesday’s matching program which for a while had some organising momentum.
(Yikes, I thought this would be a short comment, clearly I have some views here 😅).