But I also agree that the potential good done is significant enough to make some efforts in this regard. I’m personally struck by how little effort I see EAs make to persuade others of particular causes or charities, given the value that this would have given a decent chance of success.
I think this may be right. I’d like to see more careful discussion of this—perhaps with posts on this forum laying out a clear case for various different causes. One reason that it happens less than it might is that trying it’s not just a case of trying to persuade them that the thing you like is good—you also have to persuade them that it’s better than the thing they like. This can make it seem more like an attack, which may put people off (perhaps correctly).
Something which I think would help here would be more willingness to engage in creating and critiquing cost-effectiveness estimates. While they have limitations they are ultimately one of the best methods we have for comparing between different kinds of outcome. I have the impression that the EA community may have turned away from them a little further than ideal. (I plan to write more on this and I how I think they might best be used.)
I think this may be right. I’d like to see more careful discussion of this—perhaps with posts on this forum laying out a clear case for various different causes.
That would be great!
One reason that it happens less than it might is that trying it’s not just a case of trying to persuade them that the thing you like is good—you also have to persuade them that it’s better than the thing they like. This can make it seem more like an attack, which may put people off (perhaps correctly).
Agreed that this makes it tricky, and this consequence of focusing on what’s ‘best’ reminds me of what Jess described in Supportive Scepticism. Hopefully EAs can find a way to have productive discussions about these things that aren’t phrased or taken as attacks.
I think this may be right. I’d like to see more careful discussion of this—perhaps with posts on this forum laying out a clear case for various different causes. One reason that it happens less than it might is that trying it’s not just a case of trying to persuade them that the thing you like is good—you also have to persuade them that it’s better than the thing they like. This can make it seem more like an attack, which may put people off (perhaps correctly).
Something which I think would help here would be more willingness to engage in creating and critiquing cost-effectiveness estimates. While they have limitations they are ultimately one of the best methods we have for comparing between different kinds of outcome. I have the impression that the EA community may have turned away from them a little further than ideal. (I plan to write more on this and I how I think they might best be used.)
That would be great!
Agreed that this makes it tricky, and this consequence of focusing on what’s ‘best’ reminds me of what Jess described in Supportive Scepticism. Hopefully EAs can find a way to have productive discussions about these things that aren’t phrased or taken as attacks.