I at least personally want to provide some datapoints against this.
I think “sacrifices for the sake of sacrifices” has felt to me like something that at many points has substantially reduced my motivation to do other altruistic things, especially when combined with external social obligations or expectations (like it’s been the case with some of the veganism and donation stuff).
I also know many other people who feel like instincts towards virtue signaling and associated overstretching have substantially soured them in engaging with the EA community and also more broadly being altruistic with their efforts.
My crude model is that there are two forces pushing in opposite direction, and which effect wins out depends on the person and their circumstance.
If altruistic actions are ego-syntonic, they can be a source of emotional energy to fuel more altruism. And if you’re operating under capacity, the gains may well be ~free.
If the action isn’t ego-syntonic or otherwise energizing you, that effect is lost. It’s just a cost you pay. I expect this is worse for things people do out of social pressure or a sense of obligation.
Meanwhile, doing stuff takes resources- physical energy, intellectual energy, money.… If one of those is your limiting reagent, and a minor altruistic action requires it, then that minor action trades off against your big ones. Even if it is ego syntonic and increases your available emotional energy, it’s still a trade off because emotional energy wasn’t your limiting reagent.
Seperately, many people aren’t great at optimizing. Fact checking leisure reading (including social media) trades off against my core work. But “fact checking on only the most important projects, none for lesser projects” isn’t an available stance for me. I can dial it up or down somewhat, but if I push away the instinct to check unless I’m sure something is important too often, I’ll lose rigor in my core work as well. So that’s just a tax I have to pay.
I do tend to think that most people’s limiting factor is energy instead of time. E.g. it is rare to see someone work till they literally run out of hours on a project vs needing a break due to feeling tired. Even people working 12 hours a day, I still expect they run out of energy before time, at least long term. I would not typically see emotional energy as my limiting factor, but I do think it’s basically always energy (a variable typically positively affected by altruism in other areas) vs. time or money (typically negatively affected).
I at least personally want to provide some datapoints against this.
I think “sacrifices for the sake of sacrifices” has felt to me like something that at many points has substantially reduced my motivation to do other altruistic things, especially when combined with external social obligations or expectations (like it’s been the case with some of the veganism and donation stuff).
I also know many other people who feel like instincts towards virtue signaling and associated overstretching have substantially soured them in engaging with the EA community and also more broadly being altruistic with their efforts.
My crude model is that there are two forces pushing in opposite direction, and which effect wins out depends on the person and their circumstance.
If altruistic actions are ego-syntonic, they can be a source of emotional energy to fuel more altruism. And if you’re operating under capacity, the gains may well be ~free.
If the action isn’t ego-syntonic or otherwise energizing you, that effect is lost. It’s just a cost you pay. I expect this is worse for things people do out of social pressure or a sense of obligation.
Meanwhile, doing stuff takes resources- physical energy, intellectual energy, money.… If one of those is your limiting reagent, and a minor altruistic action requires it, then that minor action trades off against your big ones. Even if it is ego syntonic and increases your available emotional energy, it’s still a trade off because emotional energy wasn’t your limiting reagent.
Seperately, many people aren’t great at optimizing. Fact checking leisure reading (including social media) trades off against my core work. But “fact checking on only the most important projects, none for lesser projects” isn’t an available stance for me. I can dial it up or down somewhat, but if I push away the instinct to check unless I’m sure something is important too often, I’ll lose rigor in my core work as well. So that’s just a tax I have to pay.
I do tend to think that most people’s limiting factor is energy instead of time. E.g. it is rare to see someone work till they literally run out of hours on a project vs needing a break due to feeling tired. Even people working 12 hours a day, I still expect they run out of energy before time, at least long term. I would not typically see emotional energy as my limiting factor, but I do think it’s basically always energy (a variable typically positively affected by altruism in other areas) vs. time or money (typically negatively affected).
This assumption seems totally out of left field to me. I agree altruism can increase energy, but in many other cases it uses it up.
Another factor is that recruitment to the EA community may be more difficult if it’s perceived as very demanding.
I’m also not convinced by the costly signalling-arguments discussed in the post. (This is from a series of posts on this topic.)