The only cost of breaking the GWWC commitment is that people who saw you make that commitment might lose a but of trust in you. I think this is a great balance between being too costly—as it would be if it were legally binding—and not costly enough—as it would be if it were too vague or had vague exit clauses.
The only cost of breaking the GWWC commitment is that people who saw you make that commitment might lose a but of trust in you. I think this is a great balance
This seems like very little cost at all. Charitable donations and income are, by default, private, so no-one need know you stopped, and even when people are public about leaving the community, the main reaction I have seen is one of best-wishes and urging self-care. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any EA leaders write a harsh word about people for leaving.
I think the problem is that the vagueness of the type of commitment the GWWC represents. If it’s an ironclad commitment, people should lose a lot of trust in you. If it was a “best of intention” type commitment, people should only lose a modest amount of trust in you. I think the difference matters!
And the GWWC pledge seems to fit at a nice balance point between those two, where the cost is not so off-putting that no-one takes the pledge and not so non-committal that it’s meaningless
The only cost of breaking the GWWC commitment is that people who saw you make that commitment might lose a but of trust in you. I think this is a great balance between being too costly—as it would be if it were legally binding—and not costly enough—as it would be if it were too vague or had vague exit clauses.
This seems like very little cost at all. Charitable donations and income are, by default, private, so no-one need know you stopped, and even when people are public about leaving the community, the main reaction I have seen is one of best-wishes and urging self-care. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any EA leaders write a harsh word about people for leaving.
I think the problem is that the vagueness of the type of commitment the GWWC represents. If it’s an ironclad commitment, people should lose a lot of trust in you. If it was a “best of intention” type commitment, people should only lose a modest amount of trust in you. I think the difference matters!
And the GWWC pledge seems to fit at a nice balance point between those two, where the cost is not so off-putting that no-one takes the pledge and not so non-committal that it’s meaningless