Thanks for the post! I mostly agree with your key points: some people are (unfortunately) a lot more powerful than others, and this seems like a reason to focus on recruiting them. I also agree that, for this reason and others, it’s not obvious that EA should try to be a mass movement.
However, I think that you’re missing some benefits of having a more diverse, non-elite movement, and so reaching a conclusion which is too strong. In short, my argument is that the accusation of elitism, and elitism itself can BE hurtful to EA, not just FEEL hurtful. I’ll focus on three arguments about the consequences of elitism, then make a couple of other points.
First, I think that appearing like an ‘elite’ movement has ambiguous effects on how EA is presented in the media. Whilst it might increase how prestigious EA is, and so make it more attractive, it is also something that I could imagine negative articles about (in fact, I think that there may already be such articles, but I can’t place them right now). Something along the lines of ‘Look at these rich, white, Ivy-league educated men. What do they know about poverty? Why should we listen to them?’. I’m not saying that these arguments are necessarily particularly good ones, just that they could be damaging to EA’s image, which might limit our ability to get more people involved, and retain people.
Second, we sadly currently live in a world where power (in the forms of wealth and political capital that you discussed) correlates with a lot of other characteristics—being white, being male, being cis, being straight, having privileged parents, etc. EA probably over-represents those characteristics already, and this can cause a variety of problems. Less privileged people might feel excluded from the community, which is not nice for them. It may also reduce their participation, and so EA may exclude perspectives or skillsets that are more common in underprivileged groups, and make worse decisions as a result.
Third, it is possible that diversity is correlated with avoiding movement collapse (I’m not sure of this though—perhaps others have done more research). I’ve hinted above at some ways in which this could be brought about: causing negative media attention, and causing individuals to feel excluded, and leave the movement. This might be a really important consideration.
So far I’ve been talking only about the consequences of making EA more elite, but I think it’s important not to dismiss non-consequentialist considerations. It may be that it is just good to promote diversity and fairness whenever you have the chance. There may also be non-consequence based moral reasons to include less powerful people in important decisions that could affect them. (Again, I’m not committing to this position, but it seems worth considering seriously, if we admit some uncertainty about whether utilitarianism is the right moral theory.)
I think that given these considerations, it’s no longer so obvious that EA should be an elite movement. You point out some good reasons that EA should be elite, but there are reasons pointing in the other direction.
But as you point out, the question is not ‘Should EA be elite?‘, but ‘Should EA try to be more or less elite, given where we are at the moment?’. Where are we? EA already seems to be a pretty elite movement: I mentioned the lack of diversity above, and I think we probably have an abnormally high number of billionaires engaged with EA.
So when we account for how elite EA already is, and the risks of being elite, it seems quite possible that EA should be trying to be less elite.
Let’s not fail at other minds. SSIR is a prominent venue, and if its editors saw this as fit to print, we should assume plenty of other people agreed with it.
If you look at the article’s comments, there were far more people who disagreed with the authors than agreed. Also, EA is so small at this stage that even negative publicity means more people hear about us and are thus potentially encouraged to consider effective giving as an option.
Agreed on the potentially positive value of negative publicity, at this stage in the movement’s growth at least. We should be careful about how we expend our weirdness points, however.
Thanks for the post! I mostly agree with your key points: some people are (unfortunately) a lot more powerful than others, and this seems like a reason to focus on recruiting them. I also agree that, for this reason and others, it’s not obvious that EA should try to be a mass movement.
However, I think that you’re missing some benefits of having a more diverse, non-elite movement, and so reaching a conclusion which is too strong. In short, my argument is that the accusation of elitism, and elitism itself can BE hurtful to EA, not just FEEL hurtful. I’ll focus on three arguments about the consequences of elitism, then make a couple of other points.
First, I think that appearing like an ‘elite’ movement has ambiguous effects on how EA is presented in the media. Whilst it might increase how prestigious EA is, and so make it more attractive, it is also something that I could imagine negative articles about (in fact, I think that there may already be such articles, but I can’t place them right now). Something along the lines of ‘Look at these rich, white, Ivy-league educated men. What do they know about poverty? Why should we listen to them?’. I’m not saying that these arguments are necessarily particularly good ones, just that they could be damaging to EA’s image, which might limit our ability to get more people involved, and retain people.
Second, we sadly currently live in a world where power (in the forms of wealth and political capital that you discussed) correlates with a lot of other characteristics—being white, being male, being cis, being straight, having privileged parents, etc. EA probably over-represents those characteristics already, and this can cause a variety of problems. Less privileged people might feel excluded from the community, which is not nice for them. It may also reduce their participation, and so EA may exclude perspectives or skillsets that are more common in underprivileged groups, and make worse decisions as a result.
Third, it is possible that diversity is correlated with avoiding movement collapse (I’m not sure of this though—perhaps others have done more research). I’ve hinted above at some ways in which this could be brought about: causing negative media attention, and causing individuals to feel excluded, and leave the movement. This might be a really important consideration.
So far I’ve been talking only about the consequences of making EA more elite, but I think it’s important not to dismiss non-consequentialist considerations. It may be that it is just good to promote diversity and fairness whenever you have the chance. There may also be non-consequence based moral reasons to include less powerful people in important decisions that could affect them. (Again, I’m not committing to this position, but it seems worth considering seriously, if we admit some uncertainty about whether utilitarianism is the right moral theory.)
I think that given these considerations, it’s no longer so obvious that EA should be an elite movement. You point out some good reasons that EA should be elite, but there are reasons pointing in the other direction.
But as you point out, the question is not ‘Should EA be elite?‘, but ‘Should EA try to be more or less elite, given where we are at the moment?’. Where are we? EA already seems to be a pretty elite movement: I mentioned the lack of diversity above, and I think we probably have an abnormally high number of billionaires engaged with EA.
So when we account for how elite EA already is, and the risks of being elite, it seems quite possible that EA should be trying to be less elite.
Edit: see http://www.effective-altruism.com/ea/sl/celebrating_all_who_are_in_effective_altruism/ and the comments for even more reasons why this is a tricky question!
For an example of a media piece about the problems of EA elitism, see here: http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism
To be fair, that post is probably positive publicity for EA. Like, it’s a REALLY bad critique.
Let’s not fail at other minds. SSIR is a prominent venue, and if its editors saw this as fit to print, we should assume plenty of other people agreed with it.
If you look at the article’s comments, there were far more people who disagreed with the authors than agreed. Also, EA is so small at this stage that even negative publicity means more people hear about us and are thus potentially encouraged to consider effective giving as an option.
Agreed on the potentially positive value of negative publicity, at this stage in the movement’s growth at least. We should be careful about how we expend our weirdness points, however.