The first question here got me thinking: “Various respondents also seemed to view EA as a lofty, principle-based lifestyle that they had not yet attained and were therefore hesitant to label themselves ‘effective altruists.’”
Surely part of this is helping people to feel comfortable labeling themselves as EAs, but how can we get the vastly larger number of people with EA-ish ideas (atheists/skeptics/rationalists, economics and philosophy students, religious people focused on charity) to behave in a way that meets lofty standards?
I see the benefit of cultivating a strong standards within the community, but how does this weigh against the benefits of having a more open community?
Perhaps we can focus on suggesting alternative ways of involvement that work to incorporate individuals who are low income or less consistent in their involvement. It is a balance between doing so and not diluting the community, though.
The first question here got me thinking: “Various respondents also seemed to view EA as a lofty, principle-based lifestyle that they had not yet attained and were therefore hesitant to label themselves ‘effective altruists.’”
Surely part of this is helping people to feel comfortable labeling themselves as EAs, but how can we get the vastly larger number of people with EA-ish ideas (atheists/skeptics/rationalists, economics and philosophy students, religious people focused on charity) to behave in a way that meets lofty standards?
I see the benefit of cultivating a strong standards within the community, but how does this weigh against the benefits of having a more open community?
Perhaps we can focus on suggesting alternative ways of involvement that work to incorporate individuals who are low income or less consistent in their involvement. It is a balance between doing so and not diluting the community, though.