I think Ozy Brennanâs response to this section was very good. To quote the relevant section (though I would encourage readers to read the whole piece, which also includes some footnotes) :
It is true that effective altruism is very homogeneous, and this is a problem. I am 100% behind inclusivity efforts. And I praise the authors for their observation that inclusivity goes beyond the standard race/âclass/âgender to matters of culture and intellectual diversity.
However, I think that this subject should be addressed with care. When youâre talking about homogeneity, itâs important to acknowledge effective altruist members of various groups underrepresented in effective altruism. Very few things are more unwelcoming than âby the way, people like you donât exist here.â
Further, the description itself is offensive in many ways. Describing the average member of a movement with as many Jews as effective altruism as âculturally Protestantâ is quite anti-Semitic. The authors fail to mention queerness and transness, probably because it would be a bit inconvenient for their point to mention that an enormous number of EAs are bisexual and trans women are represented in EA at something like forty times the population rate. The average effective altruist is âneurodivergentâ which⌠is a bad thing, apparently? We need to go represent the neurotypical point of view, which is inescapable everywhere else in politics, corporations, and the media? The vague term âneurodivergenceâ actually understates the scale of effective altruismâs inclusion problem. Effective altruism is inclusive of a relatively narrow range of neurodivergences: itâs strikingly unwelcoming of, say, non-Aspie autistics.
Finally, some of this homogeneity is about things that are⌠true? I realize itâs rude to say so, but consuming animal products in the vast majority of situations in fact supports an industry which tortures animal and God in fact doesnât exist.I am glad that the effective altruism movement has reached general consensus on these things! Effective Altruist Political Ideology is hardly correct in every detail, but I donât think itâs a bad sign if a movement broadly agrees on a lot of political issues. Some political policies are harmful! Other policies make things better!
Further, perhaps I am interpreting the authors uncharitably, but I suspect that when they say âthere should be more diversity of political opinionsâ they mean âthere should be more leftists.â I am just ever-so-slightly suspicious that if my one-sided archnemesisRichard Hanania showed up with a post about how the top cause area is fighting wokeness, the authors would not be happy with this and in fact would probably start talking about racism. Which is fine! I too agree that fighting wokeness is not the top cause area! But in this case your criticism is not âeffective altruism should be more inclusive of different political views,â itâs âeffective altruismâs political views are wrong and they should have different, correct ones,â and it is dishonest to smuggle it in as an inclusivity thing.
Not sure at all how Doing EA Better is âquite anti-semiticâ, and I certainly think accusations of anti-semitism shouldnât just be thrown around, particularly given how common a problem of anti-semitism actually is. I certainly donât see how a rather amusing sterotypical EA description as âculturally Protestantâ is antisemitic; whilst there are lots of us Jews in EA, Iâm not sure I find it at all offensive to not be mentioned!
I also strongly disagree that Doing EA Better suggests having lots of Sams in it is bad (hell, they say that such a description fits âSeveral of the authors of this post fit this description eerily wellâ), and so Iâm not sure the accusations of, say, anti-neurodivergent people or antisemitism really hold much water. I also donât get how âeats a narrow range of vegan ready mealsâ becomes âthink being vegan is badâ; it reads to me like a comment on how cultuyrally homogenous we are that huel, bol and planty etc could be a cultural thing, rather than all the other vegan foods out there
You state:
âEffective Altruist Political Ideology is hardly correct in every detail, but I donât think itâs a bad sign if a movement broadly agrees on a lot of political issues. Some political policies are harmful! Other policies make things better!â
I identified EA as right-leaning because of lack of EA concern about climate change, as well as an emphasis in other areas (economics, personal finances, corporate regulation, technology development) that matches a right-leaning worldview. However, according to this 2018 survey , EAâs lean left, more than 60%.
Thereâs some overlap or really, flexibility, in how lefties in California approach financial and economic issues. Their left-leaning ideology expresses itself with opinions on abortion, racism, and climate change, and less with opinions about taxation, corporate regulation, or technology development. Which leads me to conclude that it is not helpful for me to identify EAâs with larger movements when dealing with EA views on specific issues. Better to focus on a specific EA brand of political ideology being developed inside the movement, and describe its formative influences (as the OP does), than to assume a more typical political ideology is present, such as liberal or conservative ideologies.
You state:
âHowever, I think that this subject should be addressed with care. When youâre talking about homogeneity, itâs important to acknowledge effective altruist members of various groups underrepresented in effective altruism. Very few things are more unwelcoming than âby the way, people like you donât exist here.ââ
You think that acknowledging the diversity already present in EA is important, and I agree. The ConcernedEAâs donât intend to insult or isolate any group. They are sincere in wanting to increase diversity in the EA movement, and their statements are to the effect that âThe EA movement lacks diversity that would strengthen it provided there were some necessary overlap in values held by all.â
I think Ozy Brennanâs response to this section was very good. To quote the relevant section (though I would encourage readers to read the whole piece, which also includes some footnotes) :
Not sure at all how Doing EA Better is âquite anti-semiticâ, and I certainly think accusations of anti-semitism shouldnât just be thrown around, particularly given how common a problem of anti-semitism actually is. I certainly donât see how a rather amusing sterotypical EA description as âculturally Protestantâ is antisemitic; whilst there are lots of us Jews in EA, Iâm not sure I find it at all offensive to not be mentioned!
I also strongly disagree that Doing EA Better suggests having lots of Sams in it is bad (hell, they say that such a description fits âSeveral of the authors of this post fit this description eerily wellâ), and so Iâm not sure the accusations of, say, anti-neurodivergent people or antisemitism really hold much water. I also donât get how âeats a narrow range of vegan ready mealsâ becomes âthink being vegan is badâ; it reads to me like a comment on how cultuyrally homogenous we are that huel, bol and planty etc could be a cultural thing, rather than all the other vegan foods out there
+1 to âhow is this anti-Semitic?â (Iâm also Jewish)
You state: âEffective Altruist Political Ideology is hardly correct in every detail, but I donât think itâs a bad sign if a movement broadly agrees on a lot of political issues. Some political policies are harmful! Other policies make things better!â
I identified EA as right-leaning because of lack of EA concern about climate change, as well as an emphasis in other areas (economics, personal finances, corporate regulation, technology development) that matches a right-leaning worldview. However, according to this 2018 survey , EAâs lean left, more than 60%.
Thereâs some overlap or really, flexibility, in how lefties in California approach financial and economic issues. Their left-leaning ideology expresses itself with opinions on abortion, racism, and climate change, and less with opinions about taxation, corporate regulation, or technology development. Which leads me to conclude that it is not helpful for me to identify EAâs with larger movements when dealing with EA views on specific issues. Better to focus on a specific EA brand of political ideology being developed inside the movement, and describe its formative influences (as the OP does), than to assume a more typical political ideology is present, such as liberal or conservative ideologies.
You state: âHowever, I think that this subject should be addressed with care. When youâre talking about homogeneity, itâs important to acknowledge effective altruist members of various groups underrepresented in effective altruism. Very few things are more unwelcoming than âby the way, people like you donât exist here.ââ
You think that acknowledging the diversity already present in EA is important, and I agree. The ConcernedEAâs donât intend to insult or isolate any group. They are sincere in wanting to increase diversity in the EA movement, and their statements are to the effect that âThe EA movement lacks diversity that would strengthen it provided there were some necessary overlap in values held by all.â