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, it’s 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 Maslow’s 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 can’t 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 “weaker” 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 individual’s ability to focus on personal development and meeting their basic needs before they can consider “giving something back” to the world. To put it bluntly, I think the current paradigm for EA community building of “finding” 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 “doing good” large part of their life. I think it is difficult to argue that someone who is not interested in EA as a student won’t 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 can’t control. Moreover, while I think it’s true that genetics and personality play a significant role in an individual’s 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 it’s 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.
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, it’s 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 Maslow’s 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 can’t 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 “weaker” 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 individual’s ability to focus on personal development and meeting their basic needs before they can consider “giving something back” to the world. To put it bluntly, I think the current paradigm for EA community building of “finding” 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 “doing good” large part of their life. I think it is difficult to argue that someone who is not interested in EA as a student won’t 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 can’t control. Moreover, while I think it’s true that genetics and personality play a significant role in an individual’s 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 it’s 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.