The example you use in point 5 could be made stronger. How about the creation of AMF? That arguably did a huge amount to boost the EA movement by giving us a clear success story to rally around.
Using the example of GiveWell not focusing on marketing involves a odd definition of meta. Meta normally includes both cause pri research and the promotion of that research so people act on it, but you suddenly retreat to meta being only defined as marketing. GiveWell is a meta org if anyone is.
The example you use in point 5 could be made stronger. How about the creation of AMF? That arguably did a huge amount to boost the EA movement by giving us a clear success story to rally around.
Using the example of GiveWell not focusing on marketing involves a odd definition of meta. Meta normally includes both cause pri research and the promotion of that research so people act on it, but you suddenly retreat to meta being only defined as marketing. GiveWell is a meta org if anyone is.
That’s a fair criticism. I definitely agree that cause prioritization is meta- and that GiveWell is a meta-org.
On the other hand, I think cause prioritization is exempt from many of the same meta-traps as other meta orgs since the case for impact is quite clear (re: 1) assuming people will use the research which is usually easily established, it’s usually only one level above the object-oriented stuff (re: 2), it directly addresses 3 by providing decision-relevant research, and good research attracts respect (re: 5). The biggest problem I see for cause prioritization is 4 (that, eventually, you have to actually act on the research).
Marketing of good object level causes (e.g. what GWWC does) is also only one level above object-oriented stuff, and has quite clear impact (you told people about something good and they did it).
Though I agree persuading people of effective altruism, with the hope they later do good object level stuff is another level removed. Is that the main form of meta you’re concerned by? Until recently, there has been very little resources directly invested in that kind of activity, so it seems like we have a way to go before being in a meta trap. The key is to keep watching the metrics..
Though I agree persuading people of effective altruism, with the hope they later do good object level stuff is another level removed. Is that the main form of meta you’re concerned by? Until recently, there has been very little resources directly invested in that kind of activity, so it seems like we have a way to go before being in a meta trap. The key is to keep watching the metrics..
The example you use in point 5 could be made stronger. How about the creation of AMF? That arguably did a huge amount to boost the EA movement by giving us a clear success story to rally around.
Using the example of GiveWell not focusing on marketing involves a odd definition of meta. Meta normally includes both cause pri research and the promotion of that research so people act on it, but you suddenly retreat to meta being only defined as marketing. GiveWell is a meta org if anyone is.
That’s a much better example. Thanks!
That’s a fair criticism. I definitely agree that cause prioritization is meta- and that GiveWell is a meta-org.
On the other hand, I think cause prioritization is exempt from many of the same meta-traps as other meta orgs since the case for impact is quite clear (re: 1) assuming people will use the research which is usually easily established, it’s usually only one level above the object-oriented stuff (re: 2), it directly addresses 3 by providing decision-relevant research, and good research attracts respect (re: 5). The biggest problem I see for cause prioritization is 4 (that, eventually, you have to actually act on the research).
Marketing of good object level causes (e.g. what GWWC does) is also only one level above object-oriented stuff, and has quite clear impact (you told people about something good and they did it).
Though I agree persuading people of effective altruism, with the hope they later do good object level stuff is another level removed. Is that the main form of meta you’re concerned by? Until recently, there has been very little resources directly invested in that kind of activity, so it seems like we have a way to go before being in a meta trap. The key is to keep watching the metrics..
Yep; I agree.