Thanks for this post. I think discussions about career prioritisation often become quite emotional and personal in a way that clouds people’s judgements. Sometimes I think I’ve observed the following dynamic.
1. It’s argued, more or less explicitly, that EAs should switch career into one of a small number of causes.
2. Some EAs are either not attracted to those careers, or are (or at least believe that they are) unable to successfully pursue those careers.
3. The preceding point means that there is a painful tension between the desire to do the most good, and one’s personal career prospects. There is a strong desire to resolve that tension.
4. That gives strong incentives to engage in motivated reasoning: to arrive at the conclusion that actually, this tension is illusory; one doesn’t need to engage in tough trade-offs to do the most good. One can stay on doing roughly what one currently does.
5. The EAs who believe in point 1 - that EAs should switch career to other causes—are often unwilling to criticise the reasoning described in 4. That’s because these issues are rather emotional and personal, and that some may think it’s insensitive to criticise people’s personal career choices.
I think similar dynamics play out with regards to cause prioritisation more generally, decisions whether to fund specific projects which many feel strongly about, and so on. The key aspects of these dynamics are 1) that people often are quite emotional about their choice, and therefore reluctant to give up on it even in the face of better evidence and 2) that others are reluctant to engage in serious criticism of the former group, precisely because the issue is so clearly emotional and personal to them.
One way to mitigate these problems and to improve the level of debate on these issues is to discuss the object-level considerations in a detached, unemotional way (e.g. obviously without snark); and to do so in some detail. That’s precisely what this post does.
5. also has a negative impact on the people who are trying to decide between different career options and would actually be happy to hear constructive criticism. I often feel like I cannot trust others to be honest in their feedback if I’m deciding between career options because they prefer to be ‘nice’.
Thanks for this post. I think discussions about career prioritisation often become quite emotional and personal in a way that clouds people’s judgements. Sometimes I think I’ve observed the following dynamic.
1. It’s argued, more or less explicitly, that EAs should switch career into one of a small number of causes.
2. Some EAs are either not attracted to those careers, or are (or at least believe that they are) unable to successfully pursue those careers.
3. The preceding point means that there is a painful tension between the desire to do the most good, and one’s personal career prospects. There is a strong desire to resolve that tension.
4. That gives strong incentives to engage in motivated reasoning: to arrive at the conclusion that actually, this tension is illusory; one doesn’t need to engage in tough trade-offs to do the most good. One can stay on doing roughly what one currently does.
5. The EAs who believe in point 1 - that EAs should switch career to other causes—are often unwilling to criticise the reasoning described in 4. That’s because these issues are rather emotional and personal, and that some may think it’s insensitive to criticise people’s personal career choices.
I think similar dynamics play out with regards to cause prioritisation more generally, decisions whether to fund specific projects which many feel strongly about, and so on. The key aspects of these dynamics are 1) that people often are quite emotional about their choice, and therefore reluctant to give up on it even in the face of better evidence and 2) that others are reluctant to engage in serious criticism of the former group, precisely because the issue is so clearly emotional and personal to them.
One way to mitigate these problems and to improve the level of debate on these issues is to discuss the object-level considerations in a detached, unemotional way (e.g. obviously without snark); and to do so in some detail. That’s precisely what this post does.
5. also has a negative impact on the people who are trying to decide between different career options and would actually be happy to hear constructive criticism. I often feel like I cannot trust others to be honest in their feedback if I’m deciding between career options because they prefer to be ‘nice’.