I both relatively strongly agree and strongly disagree with this post. Apologies that my points contradict one another:
Agreement:
Yes, community vibes feel weird right now. And I think in the run up to WWOTF they will only get weirder
Yes, we should be gracious to people who do small things. For me, being an EA is about being more effective or more altruistic with even $10 a month.
Disagreement:
I reckon it’s better if we focus on being a smaller highly engaged community rather than a really big one. I still think there should be actual research on this, but so far, much of the impact (SBF, Moskovitz funding GiveWell charities, direct work) has been from very engaged people. I find it compelling that we want similar levels of engagement in future. Do low engagement people become high engagement. I don’t know. I don’t emotionally enjoy this conclusion, but I can’t say it’s wrong, even though it clashes with the bullet point I made above.
GWWC is clearly a mass movement kind of organisation. I guess they should say, you might want to check out effective altruism, but it’s not necessary.
I don’t think that EA is for everyone. Again this clashes with what i said above, but I think that it can be harder for people who leave a community after some time than those who are rejected at the door. If my above point is correct, then there should be some way to signal to people that EA is for people who want to really engage and that it may not be for everyone
Synthesis
I suggest a wider movement being created around effective giving, perhaps reaching religious groups. This seems like the real “mass movement” etc
I would like research on if being smaller and higher engaged or not is better
Be welcoming to new people, gracious to poeple whatever they are doing, but signal that EAGs are mainly for those who are engaged. Anyone can come to events and feel welcome, but there is a desire for more engagement and that may not fit everyone.
I’m worried this will be controversial and I think i could have worded it better, but I think it’s better to say something clear and maybe wrong than vague. I may make edits and explain why.
Thanks Nathan. I definitely see the tensions here. Hopefully these clarifications will help :)
I reckon it’s better if we focus on being a smaller highly engaged community rather than a really big one.
My central claim isn’t about the size of the community, it’s about the diversity of EA that we present to the world (and represent within EA) and staying true to the core question not a particular set of conclusions.
It depends on what you mean by “focus” too. The community will always be some degree of concentric circles of engagement. The total size and relative distribution of engagement will vary depending on what we focus on. My central claim is that the total impact of the community will be higher if the community remains a “big tent” that sticks to the core question of EA. The mechanism is that we create more engagement within each level of engagement, with more allies and fewer adversaries.
Do low engagement people become high engagement.
I’ve never seen someone become high engagement instantly. I’ve only seen engagement as something that increases incrementally (sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes hit’s a point and tapers off, and sadly sometimes high engagement turns to high anti-engagement).
I don’t think that EA is for everyone. Again this clashes with what i said above, but I think that it can be harder for people who leave a community after some time than those who are rejected at the door. If my above point is correct, then there should be some way to signal to people that EA is for people who want to really engage and that it may not be for everyone
Depends on what you mean by EA. In my conception (and the conception I advocate for) everyone is an effective altruist to some extent sometimes and nobody is entirely an effective altruist ever. Effective altruism is a way of thinking not an identity. Some people are part of the “EA community” while some people eschew the label and community yet have much higher impact than most people within the “EA community” because they’ve interrogated big world problems and taken significant positive actions.
Agree on both points. I think the concentric circles model still holds well. “Big tent” still applies at each level of engagement though. The best critics in the core will be those who still feel comfortable in the core while disagreeing with lots of people. I highly value people who are at a similar level of engagement but hold very different views to me as they make the best critics.
I reckon it’s better if we focus on being a smaller highly engaged community rather than a really big one
Agreed, though it makes sense for Giving What We Can to become a mass movement. I think it’d be good for some people involved in GWWC to join EA, but there’s no need to push it too hard. More like let people know about EA and if it resonates with people they’ll come over.
but signal that EAGs are mainly for those who are engaged
Maybe, I think there’s scope for people to become more engaged over time.
I think there are two ways to frame an expansion of the group of people who are engaged with EA through more than donations.
The first, which sits well with your disagreements: we’re doing extremely important things which we got into by careful reasoning about our values and impact. More people may cause value drift or dilute the more impactful efforts to make way on the most important problems.
But I think a second one is much more plausible: we’re almost surely wrong about some important things. We have biases that stem from who the typical EAs are, where they live, or just the very noisy path that EA has taken so far. While our current work is important, it’s also crucial that our ideas are exposed to, and processed by, more people. What’s “value drift” in one person’s eyes might really be an important correction in another’s. What’s “dilution” may actually prove to mean a host of new useful perspectives and ideas (among other less useful ones).
I both relatively strongly agree and strongly disagree with this post. Apologies that my points contradict one another:
Agreement:
Yes, community vibes feel weird right now. And I think in the run up to WWOTF they will only get weirder
Yes, we should be gracious to people who do small things. For me, being an EA is about being more effective or more altruistic with even $10 a month.
Disagreement:
I reckon it’s better if we focus on being a smaller highly engaged community rather than a really big one. I still think there should be actual research on this, but so far, much of the impact (SBF, Moskovitz funding GiveWell charities, direct work) has been from very engaged people. I find it compelling that we want similar levels of engagement in future. Do low engagement people become high engagement. I don’t know. I don’t emotionally enjoy this conclusion, but I can’t say it’s wrong, even though it clashes with the bullet point I made above.
GWWC is clearly a mass movement kind of organisation. I guess they should say, you might want to check out effective altruism, but it’s not necessary.
I don’t think that EA is for everyone. Again this clashes with what i said above, but I think that it can be harder for people who leave a community after some time than those who are rejected at the door. If my above point is correct, then there should be some way to signal to people that EA is for people who want to really engage and that it may not be for everyone
Synthesis
I suggest a wider movement being created around effective giving, perhaps reaching religious groups. This seems like the real “mass movement” etc
I would like research on if being smaller and higher engaged or not is better
Be welcoming to new people, gracious to poeple whatever they are doing, but signal that EAGs are mainly for those who are engaged. Anyone can come to events and feel welcome, but there is a desire for more engagement and that may not fit everyone.
I’m worried this will be controversial and I think i could have worded it better, but I think it’s better to say something clear and maybe wrong than vague. I may make edits and explain why.
Thanks Nathan. I definitely see the tensions here. Hopefully these clarifications will help :)
My central claim isn’t about the size of the community, it’s about the diversity of EA that we present to the world (and represent within EA) and staying true to the core question not a particular set of conclusions.
It depends on what you mean by “focus” too. The community will always be some degree of concentric circles of engagement. The total size and relative distribution of engagement will vary depending on what we focus on. My central claim is that the total impact of the community will be higher if the community remains a “big tent” that sticks to the core question of EA. The mechanism is that we create more engagement within each level of engagement, with more allies and fewer adversaries.
I’ve never seen someone become high engagement instantly. I’ve only seen engagement as something that increases incrementally (sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes hit’s a point and tapers off, and sadly sometimes high engagement turns to high anti-engagement).
Depends on what you mean by EA. In my conception (and the conception I advocate for) everyone is an effective altruist to some extent sometimes and nobody is entirely an effective altruist ever. Effective altruism is a way of thinking not an identity. Some people are part of the “EA community” while some people eschew the label and community yet have much higher impact than most people within the “EA community” because they’ve interrogated big world problems and taken significant positive actions.
Why not both? Have a big tent with less-engaged people, and a core of more-engaged people.
Also, a lot of people donating small amounts can add up to big amounts.
Agree on both points. I think the concentric circles model still holds well. “Big tent” still applies at each level of engagement though. The best critics in the core will be those who still feel comfortable in the core while disagreeing with lots of people. I highly value people who are at a similar level of engagement but hold very different views to me as they make the best critics.
What is WWOTF?
Agreed, though it makes sense for Giving What We Can to become a mass movement. I think it’d be good for some people involved in GWWC to join EA, but there’s no need to push it too hard. More like let people know about EA and if it resonates with people they’ll come over.
Maybe, I think there’s scope for people to become more engaged over time.
“What We Owe the Future”, Will MacAskill’s new book.
I think there are two ways to frame an expansion of the group of people who are engaged with EA through more than donations.
The first, which sits well with your disagreements: we’re doing extremely important things which we got into by careful reasoning about our values and impact. More people may cause value drift or dilute the more impactful efforts to make way on the most important problems.
But I think a second one is much more plausible: we’re almost surely wrong about some important things. We have biases that stem from who the typical EAs are, where they live, or just the very noisy path that EA has taken so far. While our current work is important, it’s also crucial that our ideas are exposed to, and processed by, more people. What’s “value drift” in one person’s eyes might really be an important correction in another’s. What’s “dilution” may actually prove to mean a host of new useful perspectives and ideas (among other less useful ones).