1) On cause prioritization, I think there are already a number of ways that people can improve the effectiveness of their causes, and this is not the unique value proposition that the EA movement offers. I think what we offer that is unique is cause prioritization and data-driven evaluation, not improvement of other causes. I think we should stick to where we provide the most value.
2) I hear your point about the long run in targeting non-religious people, but I think we all see that developing countries—where the vast majority of donors are located—are turning more secular over time. Moreover, the kind of appeal that the EA movement has is most impactful for people who already value truth and reason. This is not to say we should not orient toward attracting religious people as well, just making an argument for effectiveness of outreach. If we want to be most effective in our outreach, I’d say targeting non-religious people is most impactful.
developing countries … are turning more secular over time.
Right but that effect is very gradual. It’s been going on for hundreds of year; over the time horizon of any EA marketing campaign it will have been only a de minimis impact.
2) Did you mean to say “developing” or “developed”?
I’d actually like to see more variety of both religious and non-religious people in this movement. Among the large number of people whose faith emphasizes helping the poor, GiveWell-type research could be quite interesting. I agree that religiosity is declining in developing coutnries, but in the US 60% of people identify religion being important to them and are nowhere near proportionately represented in this movement.
It’s certainly true that our current demographics are skewed in various ways, but I don’t see that alone as a good reason to seek to perpetuate the skew.
It’s certainly true that our current demographics are skewed in various ways, but I don’t see that alone as a good reason to seek to perpetuate the skew.
Well, you might think that they’re skewed because it is cheaper/easier to attract atheists than theists, so we should collect the low-hanging fruit focus on atheists.
Nice ideas!
1) On cause prioritization, I think there are already a number of ways that people can improve the effectiveness of their causes, and this is not the unique value proposition that the EA movement offers. I think what we offer that is unique is cause prioritization and data-driven evaluation, not improvement of other causes. I think we should stick to where we provide the most value.
2) I hear your point about the long run in targeting non-religious people, but I think we all see that developing countries—where the vast majority of donors are located—are turning more secular over time. Moreover, the kind of appeal that the EA movement has is most impactful for people who already value truth and reason. This is not to say we should not orient toward attracting religious people as well, just making an argument for effectiveness of outreach. If we want to be most effective in our outreach, I’d say targeting non-religious people is most impactful.
3) Yup, agreed.
4) Yup, agreed.
Right but that effect is very gradual. It’s been going on for hundreds of year; over the time horizon of any EA marketing campaign it will have been only a de minimis impact.
2) Did you mean to say “developing” or “developed”?
I’d actually like to see more variety of both religious and non-religious people in this movement. Among the large number of people whose faith emphasizes helping the poor, GiveWell-type research could be quite interesting. I agree that religiosity is declining in developing coutnries, but in the US 60% of people identify religion being important to them and are nowhere near proportionately represented in this movement.
It’s certainly true that our current demographics are skewed in various ways, but I don’t see that alone as a good reason to seek to perpetuate the skew.
Well, you might think that they’re skewed because it is cheaper/easier to attract atheists than theists, so we should collect the low-hanging fruit focus on atheists.