Hi Yarrow—thank you for taking the time to reply so thoroughly! I love your new emoji flair.
talk to enough random people about EA online or in real life and you’ll eventually hear something unexpected
Yes, I always enjoy talking to people about EA and usually find more diversity in thoughts when people converse in real life than writing online (perhaps this is because of in-group vs. out-group: while most causes have more in-fighting among the in-group, the EA community seems to have dodged this problem at the expense of in-group high conformity, but this constraint can be relaxed when talking to the out-group irl).
Is the little orange or blue diamond so different from someone having an emoji in their username, or, in real life, wearing a little pink or red ribbon for breast cancer of HIV/AIDS awareness?
I have no issues with people advertising their identity or interest or quirkiness with some kind of flair. I used a cross and astrological signs as an analogy because, like the orange diamond, they convey a sense of superiority like “I will be saved (while non-believers go to hell)” or “I’m in tune with the cosmos (while low-vibration people slave through life)”. I acknowledge these are stereotypes and not everyone uses these symbols with the same judgmental intention.
On the 10% pledge itself, my point is not that no one should donate now, but that the “official” EA pledge has too rigid of a structure. To me, the vibes are similar to most vegan activists telling people “going vegan” is the only right way and hating on vegetarians or reducetarians because they’re not meeting the standard. I think for most causes, two things are true at the same time: (1) people who have hardly thought about it should do way more about it and (2) people who have thought much about it, besides directly addressing the cause, should probably focus on effective outreach to people in (1) but chill on policing others in (2).
“Sounds like AI” is the wrong way to put this.
You’re right, the point should be more about sounding too formal/academic rather than sounding too AI. I often use AI to help me polish my writing, so I tend to associate AI writing with more structure and more serious tone, but this is a usage bias. I think doing public dialogues on the EA Forum is a great idea.
I guess you can put a lot of meaning into a little symbol. I wouldn’t interpret a cross or an astrology sign as conveying a sense of superiority, necessarily, I would just think that person is really into being Christian or really into astrology.
If you see someone wearing a red ribbon relating to HIV/AIDS, I guess you could have the Curb Your Enthusiasm reaction of: “Wow, so they’re trying to act like they’re so much better than me because they care so much about AIDS? What a jerk!” Or you could just think, “Oh, I guess they care about AIDS for some reason.”
I’ve never perceived anyone to be using the little blue and orange diamond icons to signal superiority. I interpret it as something more supportive and positive. It’s reassuring to see other people do something altruistic so you don’t feel crazy for doing it, and making a sacrifice feels more bearable when you see other people doing it too. (Imagine how different it would feel if when you donated blood, you did it completely alone in an empty room vs. seeing lots of other people around who are giving blood at the same time too.)
I’ve never observed anyone trying to police someone over donating 10% of their income, or trying to pressure them to take the pledge, or judging them for not taking it. For all I know, that has happened to somebody somewhere, I’ve just never seen it, personally.
I would say don’t worry too much about the 10% income pledge and just focus on whatever amount of donating or way of donating makes sense for you personally.
I would be concerned about people deciding to delay their donating by 40-50 years (or whatever it is), since there are probably huge opportunity costs. I hope that in 40-50 years all the most effective charities are way less cost-effective than the most effective charities today because we will have made so much progress on global poverty, infectious diseases, and other problems. I hope malaria and tuberculosis aren’t ongoing concerns in 40-50 years, meaning the Against Malaria Foundation wouldn’t even exist anymore — mission accomplished! But you said you’re already donating about 1% of your income every year, so you’re not holding off completely on donating.
Hi Yarrow—thank you for taking the time to reply so thoroughly! I love your new emoji flair.
Yes, I always enjoy talking to people about EA and usually find more diversity in thoughts when people converse in real life than writing online (perhaps this is because of in-group vs. out-group: while most causes have more in-fighting among the in-group, the EA community seems to have dodged this problem at the expense of in-group high conformity, but this constraint can be relaxed when talking to the out-group irl).
I have no issues with people advertising their identity or interest or quirkiness with some kind of flair. I used a cross and astrological signs as an analogy because, like the orange diamond, they convey a sense of superiority like “I will be saved (while non-believers go to hell)” or “I’m in tune with the cosmos (while low-vibration people slave through life)”. I acknowledge these are stereotypes and not everyone uses these symbols with the same judgmental intention.
On the 10% pledge itself, my point is not that no one should donate now, but that the “official” EA pledge has too rigid of a structure. To me, the vibes are similar to most vegan activists telling people “going vegan” is the only right way and hating on vegetarians or reducetarians because they’re not meeting the standard. I think for most causes, two things are true at the same time: (1) people who have hardly thought about it should do way more about it and (2) people who have thought much about it, besides directly addressing the cause, should probably focus on effective outreach to people in (1) but chill on policing others in (2).
You’re right, the point should be more about sounding too formal/academic rather than sounding too AI. I often use AI to help me polish my writing, so I tend to associate AI writing with more structure and more serious tone, but this is a usage bias. I think doing public dialogues on the EA Forum is a great idea.
I guess you can put a lot of meaning into a little symbol. I wouldn’t interpret a cross or an astrology sign as conveying a sense of superiority, necessarily, I would just think that person is really into being Christian or really into astrology.
If you see someone wearing a red ribbon relating to HIV/AIDS, I guess you could have the Curb Your Enthusiasm reaction of: “Wow, so they’re trying to act like they’re so much better than me because they care so much about AIDS? What a jerk!” Or you could just think, “Oh, I guess they care about AIDS for some reason.”
I’ve never perceived anyone to be using the little blue and orange diamond icons to signal superiority. I interpret it as something more supportive and positive. It’s reassuring to see other people do something altruistic so you don’t feel crazy for doing it, and making a sacrifice feels more bearable when you see other people doing it too. (Imagine how different it would feel if when you donated blood, you did it completely alone in an empty room vs. seeing lots of other people around who are giving blood at the same time too.)
I’ve never observed anyone trying to police someone over donating 10% of their income, or trying to pressure them to take the pledge, or judging them for not taking it. For all I know, that has happened to somebody somewhere, I’ve just never seen it, personally.
I would say don’t worry too much about the 10% income pledge and just focus on whatever amount of donating or way of donating makes sense for you personally.
I would be concerned about people deciding to delay their donating by 40-50 years (or whatever it is), since there are probably huge opportunity costs. I hope that in 40-50 years all the most effective charities are way less cost-effective than the most effective charities today because we will have made so much progress on global poverty, infectious diseases, and other problems. I hope malaria and tuberculosis aren’t ongoing concerns in 40-50 years, meaning the Against Malaria Foundation wouldn’t even exist anymore — mission accomplished! But you said you’re already donating about 1% of your income every year, so you’re not holding off completely on donating.