I like the general idea of this post, and I think this idea/âprogram is something worth experimenting with. Would love to see how it goes, if you decide to run it. That being said, I have a couple thoughts.
Weak criticism: (I expect there is probably a good rebuttal to this) We might want some selection for students who have already determined that they want to make âdoing goodâ a large part of their life. Maybe these students are more conscientious than the average individual, and this is an early signal of them being people who self reflects on their values/âthoughts/âbeliefs more. This could mean that they will perform better at careers that take a lot of critical thinking and/âor careful moral reasoning. Thatâs not to say these kinds of thinking skills cannot be learned, but they may be picked up faster and performed better by students who already exhibit some level of personal reflection at a younger age.
Stronger criticism: If students have not internalized that doing good matters to them, and would therefore not want to join the Intro EA Program, I strongly suspect they will also not be interested in a 5-week program about their purpose and life planning. My main concern here is that outreach will be difficult (but itâs easy to prove me wrong empirically, so feel free to go out and do it!)
A final thought on framing/âoverstepping: If I were a student first hearing about this program, I think I would be a little bit suspicious of the underlying motives. From a surface-level impression, I would think that the goal of the program would be for me âfind my purposeâ⌠then I would look more into who is running the program and ask myself âwho are these EA people, and why do they care about my purpose?â, after which I would quickly find out that they want me to join their organization.
I think the main concern that I want to bring up is that I think this program could easily be turned into a sort of bait-and-switch. Finding oneâs purpose and life goals is a very individual process, and I wouldnât want this process to be âhijackedâ by an EA program that directs people in a very specific direction. I.e. my concern is that the program will presented as if it is encouraging people to find their values and purpose, but in reality itâs just trying to incept them into following an EA career path.
Not sure if/âhow this can be avoided, except for being really up-front about the motivation of the program with applicants. I also might be misunderstanding something, so feel free to correct me.
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
Itâs grounded in an empirical context (âWow, I didnât 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.â)
I do, however, want to say that I appreciate the thinking youâve 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 âdoing good betterâ simply because more basic needs are not being met (you can read more about this in my response to Harrisonâs comment I just posted). If people read through the curriculum before signing up to the intro fellowship and see concepts like âeffectiveness mindsetâ or âscope insensitivityâ, then I think many will ask themselves âGreat, thatâs all very nice. But how is that going to help me find a job with which I support myself and my family?â
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.
Thatâs why the PLP Track might be more effective at attracting those who wouldnât normally consider the Intro Program. It provides value in a different way and addresses different priorities.
Thank you for your criticism and feedback, Harrison. I agree that if EA groups are not careful, they can come across as preachy or manipulative. Therefore, itâs very important to emphasise that the PLP Track is not intended to convince students to join the Introductory EA Program or our EA group. Its aim is to help students think about their values and their life and choose what is best for them, not what is best for any particular group. In the upcoming time we will work on strategies that attempt to mitigate risks like these.
Regarding your strong criticism, I believe your argument is plausible, but there are a few reasons why I have a different opinion. Many young adults are still figuring out what they want to do with their lives. While Maslowâs hierarchy of needs has limitations, I believe we can draw some important conclusions from it. According to Maslow, people must have their basic needs more or less met before they can focus on higher level needs. Before people focus on giving something back to the world (which is in my eyes self-actualisation), people must first satisfy their own basic needs (like having intimate relationships or the perception of security and safety). I think there is a substantial amount of young adults who simply canât afford to invest a lot of time into caring about others. Before this can effectively happen people need to take care of themselves.
The PLP Track can potentially aid this process by helping people learn more about what is actually important to them and what they are good at. Once these areas are addressed individuals may be more likely to move on to caring about others and generating social impact. I think this is also one of the reasons why career-focuses messaging is a lot more effective than donation-focused messaging. It addresses the more urgent and important needs of younger adults.
As for your âweakerâ criticism about the filtering effect, I agree that it can be beneficial. However, people come from a variety of backgrounds and often have different levels of support and resources available to them. External factors, such as privilege and luck, can significantly impact an individualâs ability to focus on personal development and meeting their basic needs before they can consider âgiving something backâ to the world. To put it bluntly, I think the current paradigm for EA community building of âfindingâ talented and ambitious people may actually be identifying those that are the most privileged. Those that had the time to lay the groundwork for EA ideas and to figure out that they want to make âdoing goodâ large part of their life. I think it is difficult to argue that someone who is not interested in EA as a student wonât likely be a good fit. What about those who had to spend a significant portion of their time working outside of university and dealing with a variety of other challenges? They simply did not have the time yet to figure these things out for themselves.
I think there is a high chance that we are losing out on a substantial amount of people who could be a very good fit, but are not (yet) due to external factors people often canât control. Moreover, while I think itâs true that genetics and personality play a significant role in an individualâs inclination towards EA ideas, there is evidence that suggests that personality traits can change throughout the 20s and even beyond. However, I believe this is a strong point you make. I am also rather skeptical about the extent to which personality changes throughout adulthood.
To conclude my response, I think itâs important to recognize that individuals are at very different stages in their development. As a result, I believe that (established) EA university groups should develop more programs that cater to a diverse range of people in order to avoid missing out on those who may be a good fit for EA, but are not yet due to external factors.
I like the general idea of this post, and I think this idea/âprogram is something worth experimenting with. Would love to see how it goes, if you decide to run it. That being said, I have a couple thoughts.
Weak criticism: (I expect there is probably a good rebuttal to this) We might want some selection for students who have already determined that they want to make âdoing goodâ a large part of their life. Maybe these students are more conscientious than the average individual, and this is an early signal of them being people who self reflects on their values/âthoughts/âbeliefs more. This could mean that they will perform better at careers that take a lot of critical thinking and/âor careful moral reasoning. Thatâs not to say these kinds of thinking skills cannot be learned, but they may be picked up faster and performed better by students who already exhibit some level of personal reflection at a younger age.
Stronger criticism: If students have not internalized that doing good matters to them, and would therefore not want to join the Intro EA Program, I strongly suspect they will also not be interested in a 5-week program about their purpose and life planning. My main concern here is that outreach will be difficult (but itâs easy to prove me wrong empirically, so feel free to go out and do it!)
A final thought on framing/âoverstepping: If I were a student first hearing about this program, I think I would be a little bit suspicious of the underlying motives. From a surface-level impression, I would think that the goal of the program would be for me âfind my purposeâ⌠then I would look more into who is running the program and ask myself âwho are these EA people, and why do they care about my purpose?â, after which I would quickly find out that they want me to join their organization.
I think the main concern that I want to bring up is that I think this program could easily be turned into a sort of bait-and-switch. Finding oneâs purpose and life goals is a very individual process, and I wouldnât want this process to be âhijackedâ by an EA program that directs people in a very specific direction. I.e. my concern is that the program will presented as if it is encouraging people to find their values and purpose, but in reality itâs just trying to incept them into following an EA career path.
Not sure if/âhow this can be avoided, except for being really up-front about the motivation of the program with applicants. I also might be misunderstanding something, so feel free to correct me.
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
Itâs grounded in an empirical context (âWow, I didnât 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.â)
I do, however, want to say that I appreciate the thinking youâve 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 âdoing good betterâ simply because more basic needs are not being met (you can read more about this in my response to Harrisonâs comment I just posted). If people read through the curriculum before signing up to the intro fellowship and see concepts like âeffectiveness mindsetâ or âscope insensitivityâ, then I think many will ask themselves âGreat, thatâs all very nice. But how is that going to help me find a job with which I support myself and my family?â
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.
Thatâs why the PLP Track might be more effective at attracting those who wouldnât normally consider the Intro Program. It provides value in a different way and addresses different priorities.
Thank you for your criticism and feedback, Harrison. I agree that if EA groups are not careful, they can come across as preachy or manipulative. Therefore, itâs very important to emphasise that the PLP Track is not intended to convince students to join the Introductory EA Program or our EA group. Its aim is to help students think about their values and their life and choose what is best for them, not what is best for any particular group. In the upcoming time we will work on strategies that attempt to mitigate risks like these.
Regarding your strong criticism, I believe your argument is plausible, but there are a few reasons why I have a different opinion. Many young adults are still figuring out what they want to do with their lives. While Maslowâs hierarchy of needs has limitations, I believe we can draw some important conclusions from it. According to Maslow, people must have their basic needs more or less met before they can focus on higher level needs. Before people focus on giving something back to the world (which is in my eyes self-actualisation), people must first satisfy their own basic needs (like having intimate relationships or the perception of security and safety). I think there is a substantial amount of young adults who simply canât afford to invest a lot of time into caring about others. Before this can effectively happen people need to take care of themselves.
The PLP Track can potentially aid this process by helping people learn more about what is actually important to them and what they are good at. Once these areas are addressed individuals may be more likely to move on to caring about others and generating social impact. I think this is also one of the reasons why career-focuses messaging is a lot more effective than donation-focused messaging. It addresses the more urgent and important needs of younger adults.
As for your âweakerâ criticism about the filtering effect, I agree that it can be beneficial. However, people come from a variety of backgrounds and often have different levels of support and resources available to them. External factors, such as privilege and luck, can significantly impact an individualâs ability to focus on personal development and meeting their basic needs before they can consider âgiving something backâ to the world. To put it bluntly, I think the current paradigm for EA community building of âfindingâ talented and ambitious people may actually be identifying those that are the most privileged. Those that had the time to lay the groundwork for EA ideas and to figure out that they want to make âdoing goodâ large part of their life. I think it is difficult to argue that someone who is not interested in EA as a student wonât likely be a good fit. What about those who had to spend a significant portion of their time working outside of university and dealing with a variety of other challenges? They simply did not have the time yet to figure these things out for themselves.
I think there is a high chance that we are losing out on a substantial amount of people who could be a very good fit, but are not (yet) due to external factors people often canât control. Moreover, while I think itâs true that genetics and personality play a significant role in an individualâs inclination towards EA ideas, there is evidence that suggests that personality traits can change throughout the 20s and even beyond. However, I believe this is a strong point you make. I am also rather skeptical about the extent to which personality changes throughout adulthood.
To conclude my response, I think itâs important to recognize that individuals are at very different stages in their development. As a result, I believe that (established) EA university groups should develop more programs that cater to a diverse range of people in order to avoid missing out on those who may be a good fit for EA, but are not yet due to external factors.