You say that you’re not trying to get people to join the EA movement, to avoid the issues of rapid movement growth, and cite my paper on this.
I wanted to say that I can see some of the same issues arising, to varying degrees, when spreading the memes which are central to the movement. Effective giving seems like it falls into this category: it would be possible for a bad presentation to turn people off the ideas altogether. I don’t think the direct danger of that is all that high, though it’s something to bear in mind. I’m a bit more concerned about building momentum around different versions of the core ideas. This could lead to the same kind of bad dynamics I was worried about, with the advantage that there is a bit less reputational damage since the brands are separate, but the disadvantage that it is much harder to coordinate the broader community, or get people to find the high-quality stuff when relevant.
On balance my guess is that these disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I therefore think it would be better not to use the new term ‘super-donor’ which looks like a term of art and could cause memetic clustering. I’d prefer just using straightforward language which means what it says—“effective giving” is very good from this perspective.
I actually think it may be good to mention effective altruism somewhere, but buried—the idea being not to try to bring as many readers as possible on board, but to provide a hook so that people for whom the article strongly resonates have something to follow up.
First, regarding citing your paper: my goal in doing so was to give more information to people who don’t have a strong awareness of the complexities of movement growth, in order to make them aware of the dangers involved. I hope that clarifies things regarding my intentions there. The same for Kerry Vaugn’s video.
Regarding spreading memes about effective giving, I think I can see your concern with using the term Superdonor as a potential source of memetic clustering. Let me echo to make sure I understand correctly what you mean. You are concerned about people congregating around the term “Superdonor” and it leading to the building of momentum around an essentially different version of core ideas, correct? Another way of saying it would be to suggest that the term “Superdonor” would be something that people build a sense of identity and even community around?
Instead, you suggest that the best thing to do to promote the ideas themselves would be to use straightforward language such as “effective giving” or “research charities before you give” or “plan your giving in advance.” This would minimize the problem of memetic clustering, as people are unlikely to build an identity around straightforward language.
I see what you mean now that you pointed out the dangers of self-identification. That’s a downside I and Jon Behar had not considered. I will bring it to him and we will talk about it—thanks for pointing it out!
You also suggest mentioning effective altruism somewhere in a buried fashion. I think I did that in the article I cited above, in point 7 - does that seem the kind of buried hook that you had in mind? If so, then we’re on the same wavelength.
Yes, no problem with citing it. I just had an initial negative reaction to the interpretation because (i) I thought “that’s not quite what it means” (although it’s extremely close), and (ii) I had the same thought about the link to Ben’s piece later in the sentence (he argues that only a minority of EAs should earn-to-give long-term; you say only a minority of people should earn-to-give).
Yes, you have understood my concern correctly (and thanks for repeating back to me in your words—that’s an efficient way of checking).
Owen, glad to get on the same page. I’ll work on getting the phrasing more clear in citing papers, thanks for giving me feedback on that, much appreciated!
You say that you’re not trying to get people to join the EA movement, to avoid the issues of rapid movement growth, and cite my paper on this.
I wanted to say that I can see some of the same issues arising, to varying degrees, when spreading the memes which are central to the movement. Effective giving seems like it falls into this category: it would be possible for a bad presentation to turn people off the ideas altogether. I don’t think the direct danger of that is all that high, though it’s something to bear in mind. I’m a bit more concerned about building momentum around different versions of the core ideas. This could lead to the same kind of bad dynamics I was worried about, with the advantage that there is a bit less reputational damage since the brands are separate, but the disadvantage that it is much harder to coordinate the broader community, or get people to find the high-quality stuff when relevant.
On balance my guess is that these disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I therefore think it would be better not to use the new term ‘super-donor’ which looks like a term of art and could cause memetic clustering. I’d prefer just using straightforward language which means what it says—“effective giving” is very good from this perspective.
I actually think it may be good to mention effective altruism somewhere, but buried—the idea being not to try to bring as many readers as possible on board, but to provide a hook so that people for whom the article strongly resonates have something to follow up.
Owen, thanks a lot for that feedback!
First, regarding citing your paper: my goal in doing so was to give more information to people who don’t have a strong awareness of the complexities of movement growth, in order to make them aware of the dangers involved. I hope that clarifies things regarding my intentions there. The same for Kerry Vaugn’s video.
Regarding spreading memes about effective giving, I think I can see your concern with using the term Superdonor as a potential source of memetic clustering. Let me echo to make sure I understand correctly what you mean. You are concerned about people congregating around the term “Superdonor” and it leading to the building of momentum around an essentially different version of core ideas, correct? Another way of saying it would be to suggest that the term “Superdonor” would be something that people build a sense of identity and even community around?
Instead, you suggest that the best thing to do to promote the ideas themselves would be to use straightforward language such as “effective giving” or “research charities before you give” or “plan your giving in advance.” This would minimize the problem of memetic clustering, as people are unlikely to build an identity around straightforward language.
I see what you mean now that you pointed out the dangers of self-identification. That’s a downside I and Jon Behar had not considered. I will bring it to him and we will talk about it—thanks for pointing it out!
You also suggest mentioning effective altruism somewhere in a buried fashion. I think I did that in the article I cited above, in point 7 - does that seem the kind of buried hook that you had in mind? If so, then we’re on the same wavelength.
Yes, no problem with citing it. I just had an initial negative reaction to the interpretation because (i) I thought “that’s not quite what it means” (although it’s extremely close), and (ii) I had the same thought about the link to Ben’s piece later in the sentence (he argues that only a minority of EAs should earn-to-give long-term; you say only a minority of people should earn-to-give).
Yes, you have understood my concern correctly (and thanks for repeating back to me in your words—that’s an efficient way of checking).
Yes, I like that buried hook. :)
Owen, glad to get on the same page. I’ll work on getting the phrasing more clear in citing papers, thanks for giving me feedback on that, much appreciated!