Iāve been considering writing something similar for a while, so Iām really glad you posted this (I honestly lacked the courage to do it myself). My own experience aligns with your altruism-first approach. I got involved with EA Oxford through that route, and when I took over organizing our socials (initially just out of willingness and due to my collegeās booking policy), our primary organizer noted how surprisingly effective they were at engaging people.
Iād been planning to bring this social-first model back to my home university, but Iāve been hesitant to buck the conventional wisdom about what works for EA groups. Despite some current issues with my schoolās activities council, I was defaulting to running an intro fellowship. Your post makes me reconsiderāhaving evidence from different EA group models could be really valuable.
On pitching EA: I completely agree about reorienting our pitches. At this yearās activities fair, I essentially A/āB tested different approaches. The most effective ones focused on āhelping people do as much good as possible, whatever that ends up meaning to them,ā then describing areas others have found effective through their own frameworks.
On āfellowshipsā: The term itself reinforces the exclusivity and hierarchy issues you mention. It positions itself as the path into EA, but I donāt think itās particularly good at that role. We should be introducing ideas and encouraging exploration and sharing, not gatekeeping.
On philosophical grounding: EA often gets bogged down in philosophical prerequisites when our core appeal is simple: people want to do good effectively. We donāt need everyone to choose a philosophical framework first. The desire to save lives can come from virtue ethics, deontology, or just basic human compassion.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a food service worker at Mission Burrito last year. He was drawn to GiveDirectly as an alternative to what he saw as a corrupt charity world. His entry point was completely different from the typical EA pathway, and it made me realize how many people we might be missing by not meeting them where they are.
Awesome, glad you appreciated the post and Iām pleased it echoed some of your own reflections and got you to think about approaching this year differently!
Iāve been considering writing something similar for a while, so Iām really glad you posted this (I honestly lacked the courage to do it myself).
My own experience aligns with your altruism-first approach. I got involved with EA Oxford through that route, and when I took over organizing our socials (initially just out of willingness and due to my collegeās booking policy), our primary organizer noted how surprisingly effective they were at engaging people.
Iād been planning to bring this social-first model back to my home university, but Iāve been hesitant to buck the conventional wisdom about what works for EA groups. Despite some current issues with my schoolās activities council, I was defaulting to running an intro fellowship. Your post makes me reconsiderāhaving evidence from different EA group models could be really valuable.
On pitching EA: I completely agree about reorienting our pitches. At this yearās activities fair, I essentially A/āB tested different approaches. The most effective ones focused on āhelping people do as much good as possible, whatever that ends up meaning to them,ā then describing areas others have found effective through their own frameworks.
On āfellowshipsā: The term itself reinforces the exclusivity and hierarchy issues you mention. It positions itself as the path into EA, but I donāt think itās particularly good at that role. We should be introducing ideas and encouraging exploration and sharing, not gatekeeping.
On philosophical grounding: EA often gets bogged down in philosophical prerequisites when our core appeal is simple: people want to do good effectively. We donāt need everyone to choose a philosophical framework first. The desire to save lives can come from virtue ethics, deontology, or just basic human compassion.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a food service worker at Mission Burrito last year. He was drawn to GiveDirectly as an alternative to what he saw as a corrupt charity world. His entry point was completely different from the typical EA pathway, and it made me realize how many people we might be missing by not meeting them where they are.
Awesome, glad you appreciated the post and Iām pleased it echoed some of your own reflections and got you to think about approaching this year differently!