I obviously expected this comment would get a mix of upvotes and downvotes, but I’d be pleased if any of the downvoters would be kind enough to explain on what grounds they are downvoting.
Do you disagree with the empirical claim that central EAs entities promote longtermism (the claim we should give priority to improving the longterm)?
Do you disagree with the empirical claim that there is pressure within EA to agree with longtermism, e.g. if you don’t, it carries a perceived or real social or other penalty (such, as, er, getting random downvotes)?
Are my claims about the structure of the EA Introductory Fellowship false?
Is it something about what I put in the disclaimer?
Is a huge contribution. I supported it, it’s great. It’s obviously written by someone who leans toward non-longtermist cause areas, but somehow that makes their impartial vibe more impressive.
The person lays out their ideas and aims transparently, and I think even an strong longtermist “opponent” would appreciate it, maybe even gain some perspective of being sort of “oppressed”.
Your comment:
Your comment slots below this top comment, but doesn’t seem to be a natural reply. It is plausible you replied because you wanted a top slot.
You immediately slide into rhetoric with a quote that would rally supporters, but is unlikely to be appreciated by people who disagree with you (“you can have any view you want, so long as it’s longtermism”). That seems like something you would say at a political rally and is objectively false. This is bad.
As a positive and related to the top comment, you do add your fellowship point, and Max Dalton picks this up, which is productive (from the perspective of a proponent of non-longtermist cause areas).
But I think the biggest issue is that, for a moment, there was this thing where people could have listened.
You sort of just walked past the savasana, slouched a bit and then slugged longtermism in the gut, while the top comment was opening up the issue for thought.
The danger is that people would find this alienating in and scoring points on the internet isn’t a good thing for EA, right?
(As a side issue, I’m unsure or ambivalent if criticism specifically needs to be prescribed into introduction materials, especially as a consequence of activism by opponents. It might be the case that more room or better content for other cause areas should exist. However, prescribing or giving check boxes something rigid could just lead to a unhealthy, adversarial dynamic. But I’m really unsure and obviously the CEO of CEA takes this seriously).
Hmm. This is very helpful, thank you very much. I don’t think we’re on the same page, but it’s useful for indicating where those differences may lie.
You immediately slide into rhetoric with a quote that would rally supporters, but is unlikely to be appreciated by people who disagree with you
I’m not what you mean by ‘supporters’. Supporters of what? Supporters of ‘non-longtermism’? Supporters of the view that “EA is just longtermism”? FWIW, I have a lot of respect for (very many) longtermists: I see them as seriously and sincerely engaged in a credible altruistic project, just not one I (currently?) consider the priority; I hope they would view me in the same way about my efforts to make lives happier, and that we would be able to cooperate engage in moral trade where possible.
What I am less happy is the (growing) sense that EA is only longtermism—it’s the only credible game in town—which is the subject of this post. One can be a longtermist—indeed of any moral persuasion—and object to that if you want the effective altruism community to be a pluralistic and inclusive place.
On the other hand, one could take a different, rather sneering, arrogant, and unpleasant view that longtermism is clearly true, anyone who doesn’t recognise this is just an idiot, and all those idiots should clear off. I have also encountered this perspective—far more often than I expected or hoped to.
Given all this, I find it hard to make sense of your claim I’ve
slugged longtermism in the gut
I’ve not attacked longtermism. If anything, I’m attacking the sense that only longtermists are welcome in EA—a perception based on exactly the sort of evidence raised in the top comment.
Finally, you said
As a side issue, I’m unsure or ambivalent if criticism specifically needs to be prescribed into introduction materials, especially as a consequence of activism by opponents.
Which I am almost stunned by. Criticism of EA? Criticism of longtermism? Am I an opponent of EA? That would be news to me. An introductory course on EA should include, presumably, arguments for and against the various positions one might take about how to do the most good. Everyone seems to agree that doing good is hard, and we need openness and criticism to improve what we are doing, and therefore I don’t see why you want to deliberately minimise, or refuse to include, criticism—that’s what you seem to be suggesting, I don’t know if that’s what you mean. Even an introductory course on just longtermist would, presumably cover objections to the view.
I obviously expected this comment would get a mix of upvotes and downvotes, but I’d be pleased if any of the downvoters would be kind enough to explain on what grounds they are downvoting.
Do you disagree with the empirical claim that central EAs entities promote longtermism (the claim we should give priority to improving the longterm)?
Do you disagree with the empirical claim that there is pressure within EA to agree with longtermism, e.g. if you don’t, it carries a perceived or real social or other penalty (such, as, er, getting random downvotes)?
Are my claims about the structure of the EA Introductory Fellowship false?
Is it something about what I put in the disclaimer?
The top comment:
Is a huge contribution. I supported it, it’s great. It’s obviously written by someone who leans toward non-longtermist cause areas, but somehow that makes their impartial vibe more impressive.
The person lays out their ideas and aims transparently, and I think even an strong longtermist “opponent” would appreciate it, maybe even gain some perspective of being sort of “oppressed”.
Your comment:
Your comment slots below this top comment, but doesn’t seem to be a natural reply. It is plausible you replied because you wanted a top slot.
You immediately slide into rhetoric with a quote that would rally supporters, but is unlikely to be appreciated by people who disagree with you (“you can have any view you want, so long as it’s longtermism”). That seems like something you would say at a political rally and is objectively false. This is bad.
As a positive and related to the top comment, you do add your fellowship point, and Max Dalton picks this up, which is productive (from the perspective of a proponent of non-longtermist cause areas).
But I think the biggest issue is that, for a moment, there was this thing where people could have listened.
You sort of just walked past the savasana, slouched a bit and then slugged longtermism in the gut, while the top comment was opening up the issue for thought.
The danger is that people would find this alienating in and scoring points on the internet isn’t a good thing for EA, right?
(As a side issue, I’m unsure or ambivalent if criticism specifically needs to be prescribed into introduction materials, especially as a consequence of activism by opponents. It might be the case that more room or better content for other cause areas should exist. However, prescribing or giving check boxes something rigid could just lead to a unhealthy, adversarial dynamic. But I’m really unsure and obviously the CEO of CEA takes this seriously).
Hmm. This is very helpful, thank you very much. I don’t think we’re on the same page, but it’s useful for indicating where those differences may lie.
I’m not what you mean by ‘supporters’. Supporters of what? Supporters of ‘non-longtermism’? Supporters of the view that “EA is just longtermism”? FWIW, I have a lot of respect for (very many) longtermists: I see them as seriously and sincerely engaged in a credible altruistic project, just not one I (currently?) consider the priority; I hope they would view me in the same way about my efforts to make lives happier, and that we would be able to cooperate engage in moral trade where possible.
What I am less happy is the (growing) sense that EA is only longtermism—it’s the only credible game in town—which is the subject of this post. One can be a longtermist—indeed of any moral persuasion—and object to that if you want the effective altruism community to be a pluralistic and inclusive place.
On the other hand, one could take a different, rather sneering, arrogant, and unpleasant view that longtermism is clearly true, anyone who doesn’t recognise this is just an idiot, and all those idiots should clear off. I have also encountered this perspective—far more often than I expected or hoped to.
Given all this, I find it hard to make sense of your claim I’ve
I’ve not attacked longtermism. If anything, I’m attacking the sense that only longtermists are welcome in EA—a perception based on exactly the sort of evidence raised in the top comment.
Finally, you said
Which I am almost stunned by. Criticism of EA? Criticism of longtermism? Am I an opponent of EA? That would be news to me. An introductory course on EA should include, presumably, arguments for and against the various positions one might take about how to do the most good. Everyone seems to agree that doing good is hard, and we need openness and criticism to improve what we are doing, and therefore I don’t see why you want to deliberately minimise, or refuse to include, criticism—that’s what you seem to be suggesting, I don’t know if that’s what you mean. Even an introductory course on just longtermist would, presumably cover objections to the view.