When you say that “EA philosophy . . . glosses over key factors other than distance,” do you mean that EAs do not believe that “nationalism, localism and racism” are meaningful factors in explaining mainstream Western charitable priorities, or that EAs do not spend enough time talking about those factors? I would be surprised if you polled a number of EAs and any significant number disagreed with this belief.
My take is that telling potential donors that they have been doing charity in a nationalist/racist manner is much more likely to get them to stop listening to you than it is to change their practices—and much, if not most, of the critique of mainstream Western charitable priorities is geared toward outsiders. So it may be more instrumentally effective to lead with and focus on a rationale based on a universal cognitive bias that potential donors can accept without having to label their past charitable behavior as racist/nationalist.
Do you think this may be an instance where the difference lies mainly in considerations of inherent vs. instrumental value? Or do you think EAs tend to get the tactical approach here wrong on instrumental grounds alone?
In terms of things EAs actually believe, I think EAs overestimate the contribution of cognitive biases relating to distance, and underestimate the contributions of nationalism, localism and racism, to charity priorities in rich countries.
Luckily, I don’t think my disagreement with most EAs here is super action-relevant, other than that I think EAs who are interested in promoting broad social values should consider promoting internationalism.
In terms of strategy, I agree that it mostly makes sense to emphasise factors that will offend potential donors less, such as cognitive biases relating to distance (and maybe it is this strategy that causes EAs to overestimate the importance of this factor compared to other factors).
Although I think when pitching effective giving to people we know are left wing or progressives, it might be more effective to emphasise the nationalism and racism elements, since I expect left-wingers to be keen to position themselves against these ideologies.
When you say that “EA philosophy . . . glosses over key factors other than distance,” do you mean that EAs do not believe that “nationalism, localism and racism” are meaningful factors in explaining mainstream Western charitable priorities, or that EAs do not spend enough time talking about those factors? I would be surprised if you polled a number of EAs and any significant number disagreed with this belief.
My take is that telling potential donors that they have been doing charity in a nationalist/racist manner is much more likely to get them to stop listening to you than it is to change their practices—and much, if not most, of the critique of mainstream Western charitable priorities is geared toward outsiders. So it may be more instrumentally effective to lead with and focus on a rationale based on a universal cognitive bias that potential donors can accept without having to label their past charitable behavior as racist/nationalist.
Do you think this may be an instance where the difference lies mainly in considerations of inherent vs. instrumental value? Or do you think EAs tend to get the tactical approach here wrong on instrumental grounds alone?
Thanks for your comment!
In terms of things EAs actually believe, I think EAs overestimate the contribution of cognitive biases relating to distance, and underestimate the contributions of nationalism, localism and racism, to charity priorities in rich countries.
Luckily, I don’t think my disagreement with most EAs here is super action-relevant, other than that I think EAs who are interested in promoting broad social values should consider promoting internationalism.
In terms of strategy, I agree that it mostly makes sense to emphasise factors that will offend potential donors less, such as cognitive biases relating to distance (and maybe it is this strategy that causes EAs to overestimate the importance of this factor compared to other factors).
Although I think when pitching effective giving to people we know are left wing or progressives, it might be more effective to emphasise the nationalism and racism elements, since I expect left-wingers to be keen to position themselves against these ideologies.