I am glad to see the term âtruthseekingâ go. The problems with this term: 1) it has never been clearly defined by anyone anywhere, 2) people seem to disagree about what it means, and 3) the main way it seems to be used in practice on the EA Forum is as an accusation made against someone else â but due to (1) and (2), itâs typically not clear what, exactly, the accusation is. âScout mindsetâ is much more clearly defined, so itâs a good replacement. (I donât particularly love that term, personally, but thatâs neither here nor there.)
Scope sensitivity seems like a good replacement for prioritization, no? I guess scope sensitivity and recognition of trade-offs together have replaced prioritization. That seems fine to me. What do you think?
Impartial altruism and impartiality sound like the same thing. So, thatâs fine.
I think Kestrel is right that the only clear substantive change is collaborative spirit was dropped. Is that a good guiding principle? Could it also be substituted with something a bit clearer or better?
I donât have a super strong view on which set of guiding principles is betterâI just thought it was odd for them to be changed in this way.
If pushed, I prefer the old set, and a significant part of that preference stems from the amount of jargon in the new set. My ideal would perhaps be a combination of the old set and the 2017 set.
Expanding our moral circle
We work to overcome our natural tendency to care most about those closest to us. This means taking seriously the interests of distant strangers, future generations, and nonhuman animalsâanyone whose wellbeing we can affect through our choices. We continuously question the boundaries we place around moral consideration, and weâre willing to help wherever we can do the most good, not just where helping feels most natural or comfortable.
Prioritisation
We do the hard work of choosing where to focus our limited time, money, and attention. This means being willing to say âthis is good, but not the best use of marginal resourcesââand actually following through, even when it means disappointing people or turning down appealing opportunities. We resist scope creep and donât let personal preferences override our considered judgments about where we can have the most impact.
Scientific mindset
We treat our beliefs as hypotheses to be tested rather than conclusions to be defended. This means actively seeking disconfirming evidence, updating based on data, and maintaining genuine uncertainty about what we donât yet know. We acknowledge the limits of our evidence, donât oversell our findings, and follow arguments wherever they leadâeven when the conclusions are uncomfortable or threaten projects we care about.
Openness
We take unusual ideas seriously and are willing to consider approaches that seem weird or unconventional if the reasoning is sound. We default to transparency about our reasoning, funding, mistakes, and internal debates. We make our work easy to scrutinise and critique, remain accessible to people from different backgrounds, and share knowledge rather than hoarding it. We normalise admitting when we get things wrong and create cultures where people can acknowledge mistakes without fear, while still maintaining accountability.
Acting with integrity
We align our behaviour with our stated values. This means being honest even when itâs costly, keeping our commitments, and treating people ethically regardless of their status or usefulness to our goals. How we conduct ourselvesâespecially toward those with less powerâreflects our actual values more than our stated principles. We hold ourselves and our institutions to high standards of personal and professional conduct, recognising that being trustworthy is foundational to everything else.
I am glad to see the term âtruthseekingâ go. The problems with this term: 1) it has never been clearly defined by anyone anywhere, 2) people seem to disagree about what it means, and 3) the main way it seems to be used in practice on the EA Forum is as an accusation made against someone else â but due to (1) and (2), itâs typically not clear what, exactly, the accusation is. âScout mindsetâ is much more clearly defined, so itâs a good replacement. (I donât particularly love that term, personally, but thatâs neither here nor there.)
Scope sensitivity seems like a good replacement for prioritization, no? I guess scope sensitivity and recognition of trade-offs together have replaced prioritization. That seems fine to me. What do you think?
Impartial altruism and impartiality sound like the same thing. So, thatâs fine.
I think Kestrel is right that the only clear substantive change is collaborative spirit was dropped. Is that a good guiding principle? Could it also be substituted with something a bit clearer or better?
I donât have a super strong view on which set of guiding principles is betterâI just thought it was odd for them to be changed in this way.
If pushed, I prefer the old set, and a significant part of that preference stems from the amount of jargon in the new set. My ideal would perhaps be a combination of the old set and the 2017 set.
Expanding our moral circle
We work to overcome our natural tendency to care most about those closest to us. This means taking seriously the interests of distant strangers, future generations, and nonhuman animalsâanyone whose wellbeing we can affect through our choices. We continuously question the boundaries we place around moral consideration, and weâre willing to help wherever we can do the most good, not just where helping feels most natural or comfortable.
Prioritisation
We do the hard work of choosing where to focus our limited time, money, and attention. This means being willing to say âthis is good, but not the best use of marginal resourcesââand actually following through, even when it means disappointing people or turning down appealing opportunities. We resist scope creep and donât let personal preferences override our considered judgments about where we can have the most impact.
Scientific mindset
We treat our beliefs as hypotheses to be tested rather than conclusions to be defended. This means actively seeking disconfirming evidence, updating based on data, and maintaining genuine uncertainty about what we donât yet know. We acknowledge the limits of our evidence, donât oversell our findings, and follow arguments wherever they leadâeven when the conclusions are uncomfortable or threaten projects we care about.
Openness
We take unusual ideas seriously and are willing to consider approaches that seem weird or unconventional if the reasoning is sound. We default to transparency about our reasoning, funding, mistakes, and internal debates. We make our work easy to scrutinise and critique, remain accessible to people from different backgrounds, and share knowledge rather than hoarding it. We normalise admitting when we get things wrong and create cultures where people can acknowledge mistakes without fear, while still maintaining accountability.
Acting with integrity
We align our behaviour with our stated values. This means being honest even when itâs costly, keeping our commitments, and treating people ethically regardless of their status or usefulness to our goals. How we conduct ourselvesâespecially toward those with less powerâreflects our actual values more than our stated principles. We hold ourselves and our institutions to high standards of personal and professional conduct, recognising that being trustworthy is foundational to everything else.
Wow, I like scientific mindset a lot more than âtruthseekingâ (what does it mean??) or scout mindset!
I think you are right that there is too much jargon in the new set of principles and the old set is much nicer.
I also agree there should probably be a consultation with the community on this.