Thanks for the great post Owen, this is an important topic. I agree that one can go too far in pushing others to change cause if they sincerely think that a different one is best, for reasons including epistemic modesty and being nice. 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 (as I briefly discussed in my Where I’m giving and why post.)
Also, as I said when representing global poverty in the causes debate at last year’s CEA away weekend, I think that dialogues about which causes to focus on would be most productive if they were focused on specific actions or, even better, charities. This makes them concrete and action relevant for those of deciding whether to donate to, say, deworming or an alternative charity within a different cause area.
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 share Tom’s feeling of being struck by this. As someone who is relatively young and undecided, I would appreciate more people arguing for their own causes/paths. I agree there is a happy medium here, and I would likely put it in a place of, “People who focus on a particular cause publicly state their reasoning and welcome critique, but don’t actively try to ‘convert’ others unless invited to do so.” I would love to hear such reasoning (with critique) from many EAs.
I think that dialogues about which causes to focus on would be most productive if they were focused on specific actions or, even better, charities. This makes them concrete and action relevant for those of deciding whether to donate to, say, deworming or an alternative charity within a different cause area.
I substantially disagree with this. I do think there are some advantages to bringing it right down to the concrete at times, but I think that discussing causes is often useful for deciding things like where to investigate or wait further for specific opportunities, and asking for definite actions can inadvertently cut off consideration of such options.
I’d prefer for example to think of “we already have good knowledge about great charities in global health” as a factor in favour of it as a cause. I think this has the extra benefit that cause comparison is a hard and complicated question, so it’s best to avoid complicating it further by trying to consider how good specific charities are at the same time, if this can be factored out and considered separately.
I do think there are some advantages to bringing it right down to the concrete at times, but I think that discussing causes is often useful for deciding things like where to investigate or wait further for specific opportunities, and asking for definite actions can inadvertently cut off consideration of such options.
That could be so. My focus on this concrete question partly stems from being concerned with the issue I presented at the weekend away talk: I was going to give several thousand pounds to charity that year, so needed to hear a specific alternative that was better than AMF. I also find it helpful to discuss the more tractable issue of choosing between specific charities first, where one can look at things like track record. But there are certainly other ways of looking at the issue!
Thanks for the great post Owen, this is an important topic. I agree that one can go too far in pushing others to change cause if they sincerely think that a different one is best, for reasons including epistemic modesty and being nice. 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 (as I briefly discussed in my Where I’m giving and why post.)
Also, as I said when representing global poverty in the causes debate at last year’s CEA away weekend, I think that dialogues about which causes to focus on would be most productive if they were focused on specific actions or, even better, charities. This makes them concrete and action relevant for those of deciding whether to donate to, say, deworming or an alternative charity within a different cause area.
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.
I share Tom’s feeling of being struck by this. As someone who is relatively young and undecided, I would appreciate more people arguing for their own causes/paths. I agree there is a happy medium here, and I would likely put it in a place of, “People who focus on a particular cause publicly state their reasoning and welcome critique, but don’t actively try to ‘convert’ others unless invited to do so.” I would love to hear such reasoning (with critique) from many EAs.
I substantially disagree with this. I do think there are some advantages to bringing it right down to the concrete at times, but I think that discussing causes is often useful for deciding things like where to investigate or wait further for specific opportunities, and asking for definite actions can inadvertently cut off consideration of such options.
I’d prefer for example to think of “we already have good knowledge about great charities in global health” as a factor in favour of it as a cause. I think this has the extra benefit that cause comparison is a hard and complicated question, so it’s best to avoid complicating it further by trying to consider how good specific charities are at the same time, if this can be factored out and considered separately.
That could be so. My focus on this concrete question partly stems from being concerned with the issue I presented at the weekend away talk: I was going to give several thousand pounds to charity that year, so needed to hear a specific alternative that was better than AMF. I also find it helpful to discuss the more tractable issue of choosing between specific charities first, where one can look at things like track record. But there are certainly other ways of looking at the issue!