I worry that this is not very incentive compatible however. It would presumably create strong incentives for men to identify as only EA-adjacent, not work for EA orgs, not publicly donate to effective charities, so as to exempt themselves from the rule.
It also seems like it could worsen selection pressures. If more well behaved males abide by such a rule, this would make things easier for less moral guys by reducing competition.
Traditionally this incentive issue has been partially solved by stigmatizing those who violate the norm, but that doesn’t work as well if the violators are not part of the community. The other part of the traditional solution is the stigmatization of women who accept such approaches, because each one who does so imposes negative externalities on other women by encouraging cadish behavior.
Most functional institutions outside of EA, from companies to friend groups to extended families[1], have developed norms against sleeping around within the group.
Yes, although historically groups like villages, churches and ethnic groups have been keen to encourage members to date and marry each other.
Since this post is a call for people to voluntarily consider avoiding some personal behaviours, I don’t imagine it would cause people to stop identifying as EA as a workaround.
Even if there was a norm established along the lines here, it would presumably work on an informal level instead of based on whether people explicitly self-identify as EA, so I don’t think it would affect identifying as an EA anyway. I also have a really hard time imagining people who would avoid working at EA orgs or donating to effective charities in order to be able to sleep around within EA without judgment. Who cares that much about being able to sleep with EAs as opposed to sleeping with people outside the community, but doesn’t care about doing actual EA stuff? That sort of person sounds like they have an EA fetish. I suppose I could imagine a hypothetical person who is only in EA because the community gives them a source of people to hook up with and that they’d leave otherwise, but my honest view is if someone is actually in that boat then I’d probably want them to leave.
historically groups like villages, churches and ethnic groups have been keen to encourage members to date and marry each other
Right, and I don’t consider that to be “sleeping around”. I elaborate on my views on dating within EA here.
I agree with you here. I didn’t realize how dearly people held the ability to sleep around within the community. I do worry that this setup creates bad incentives where people who want casual sex are far more highly motivated to go out to in person events, which means a disproportionate number of any local groups may have quite a few people seeking casual sex.
This is a very bad state of affairs for trying to grow the movement, especially if we want more “normal” people or women.
I feel happy you wrote this.
I worry that this is not very incentive compatible however. It would presumably create strong incentives for men to identify as only EA-adjacent, not work for EA orgs, not publicly donate to effective charities, so as to exempt themselves from the rule.
It also seems like it could worsen selection pressures. If more well behaved males abide by such a rule, this would make things easier for less moral guys by reducing competition.
https://slate.com/culture/1996/07/more-sex-is-safer-sex.html
Traditionally this incentive issue has been partially solved by stigmatizing those who violate the norm, but that doesn’t work as well if the violators are not part of the community. The other part of the traditional solution is the stigmatization of women who accept such approaches, because each one who does so imposes negative externalities on other women by encouraging cadish behavior.
Yes, although historically groups like villages, churches and ethnic groups have been keen to encourage members to date and marry each other.
Since this post is a call for people to voluntarily consider avoiding some personal behaviours, I don’t imagine it would cause people to stop identifying as EA as a workaround.
Even if there was a norm established along the lines here, it would presumably work on an informal level instead of based on whether people explicitly self-identify as EA, so I don’t think it would affect identifying as an EA anyway. I also have a really hard time imagining people who would avoid working at EA orgs or donating to effective charities in order to be able to sleep around within EA without judgment. Who cares that much about being able to sleep with EAs as opposed to sleeping with people outside the community, but doesn’t care about doing actual EA stuff? That sort of person sounds like they have an EA fetish. I suppose I could imagine a hypothetical person who is only in EA because the community gives them a source of people to hook up with and that they’d leave otherwise, but my honest view is if someone is actually in that boat then I’d probably want them to leave.
Right, and I don’t consider that to be “sleeping around”. I elaborate on my views on dating within EA here.
I agree with you here. I didn’t realize how dearly people held the ability to sleep around within the community. I do worry that this setup creates bad incentives where people who want casual sex are far more highly motivated to go out to in person events, which means a disproportionate number of any local groups may have quite a few people seeking casual sex.
This is a very bad state of affairs for trying to grow the movement, especially if we want more “normal” people or women.