I agree with this last point on underlying motives. EA is one direction for purpose-seeking people to go in, but not everyone will choose it. This program could also look vaguely religious, which is generally preferable to avoid.
I would also question whether a focused program is the best way to develop people with EA motivation. I think sometimes people go through the intro program and find purpose in it because...
They see their peers struggling with the same questions about meaning and purpose
Their facilitator has found meaning through EA and are acting based on EA ideas
It’s grounded in an empirical context (“Wow, I didn’t realize that lots of people live on $2 a day, 70 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for no good reason, and AGI may pose an existential risk.”)
I do, however, want to say that I appreciate the thinking you’ve done here. The identifying vs. generating talent topic is one that I look forward to reading more about, including follow-ups to this post with results.
Also thank you Pete for your point here! I agree that the intro program can be a very good way for people to find purpose. However, I argue that a significant proportion of people are less interested in learning about “doing good better” simply because more basic needs are not being met (you can read more about this in my response to Harrison’s comment I just posted). If people read through the curriculum before signing up to the intro fellowship and see concepts like “effectiveness mindset” or “scope insensitivity”, then I think many will ask themselves “Great, that’s all very nice. But how is that going to help me find a job with which I support myself and my family?”
People will prioritise their time according to what is currently most important to them. And if you are in a phase of your life where you are not as privileged to be able to make doing good a core part of your life, you will often have more urgent things to manage than joining an Introductory EA Program. So while I agree that the intro program has many potential benefits, I believe the actual challenge is getting people to sign up for it in the first place.
That’s why the PLP Track might be more effective at attracting those who wouldn’t normally consider the Intro Program. It provides value in a different way and addresses different priorities.
I agree with this last point on underlying motives. EA is one direction for purpose-seeking people to go in, but not everyone will choose it. This program could also look vaguely religious, which is generally preferable to avoid.
I would also question whether a focused program is the best way to develop people with EA motivation. I think sometimes people go through the intro program and find purpose in it because...
They see their peers struggling with the same questions about meaning and purpose
Their facilitator has found meaning through EA and are acting based on EA ideas
It’s grounded in an empirical context (“Wow, I didn’t realize that lots of people live on $2 a day, 70 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for no good reason, and AGI may pose an existential risk.”)
I do, however, want to say that I appreciate the thinking you’ve done here. The identifying vs. generating talent topic is one that I look forward to reading more about, including follow-ups to this post with results.
Also thank you Pete for your point here! I agree that the intro program can be a very good way for people to find purpose. However, I argue that a significant proportion of people are less interested in learning about “doing good better” simply because more basic needs are not being met (you can read more about this in my response to Harrison’s comment I just posted). If people read through the curriculum before signing up to the intro fellowship and see concepts like “effectiveness mindset” or “scope insensitivity”, then I think many will ask themselves “Great, that’s all very nice. But how is that going to help me find a job with which I support myself and my family?”
People will prioritise their time according to what is currently most important to them. And if you are in a phase of your life where you are not as privileged to be able to make doing good a core part of your life, you will often have more urgent things to manage than joining an Introductory EA Program. So while I agree that the intro program has many potential benefits, I believe the actual challenge is getting people to sign up for it in the first place.
That’s why the PLP Track might be more effective at attracting those who wouldn’t normally consider the Intro Program. It provides value in a different way and addresses different priorities.