I’m not sure about the factual/epistemic aspects of it, but there is at least some element here that seems at least somewhat accurate.
It has always struck me as a bit odd to glorify an individual for accomplishing X or donating Y, when they are only able to do that because of the support they have received from others. To be trivially simplistic: could I have done any of the so-called impressive things that I have done without support from a wide away of sources (stable childhood home, accessible public schools of decent quality, rule of law, guidance from mentors and friends, etc.). Especially in the context of EA, in which so many of us are so incredibly privileged and fortunate (even if we are only comparing within our own countries). So many people in EA come from wealthy families[1], attended prestigious schools, and earn far more than the median income for their country.
I sometimes look at people that I view as successful within a particular scope and I wonder “if my parents could have afforded tutors for me would I have ended up more like him?” or “if someone had introduced me to [topic] at age 13 would I have ended up a computer engineer?” or “If my family had lived in and had connections to the [whatever] industry in [some city] would that have affected my life path for the better?” I think it isn’t healthy or reasonable to spend too much time indulging in these kinds of hypotheticals. But within the context of attributing the source of impact I think that there is some sense to it.
Rather than saying “Bob wrote a best-selling book” we should probably say that a team of marketers, copy editors, writing coaches, and other people combined efforts to produce the book, and Bob gets most of the credit.[2] Perhaps more things in life should have credits the way a movie does, listing all of the people that contributed directly to the effort.
I don’t have any data to suggest that the percent of people in EA that come from wealthy families in higher than the percent of non-EAs that come from wealthy families; this is a rough (and untested) hypothesis. I’d be fascinated to see a histogram of EAs by family income from ages 0-18, or something similar.
I’m not sure about the factual/epistemic aspects of it, but there is at least some element here that seems at least somewhat accurate.
It has always struck me as a bit odd to glorify an individual for accomplishing X or donating Y, when they are only able to do that because of the support they have received from others. To be trivially simplistic: could I have done any of the so-called impressive things that I have done without support from a wide away of sources (stable childhood home, accessible public schools of decent quality, rule of law, guidance from mentors and friends, etc.). Especially in the context of EA, in which so many of us are so incredibly privileged and fortunate (even if we are only comparing within our own countries). So many people in EA come from wealthy families[1], attended prestigious schools, and earn far more than the median income for their country.
I sometimes look at people that I view as successful within a particular scope and I wonder “if my parents could have afforded tutors for me would I have ended up more like him?” or “if someone had introduced me to [topic] at age 13 would I have ended up a computer engineer?” or “If my family had lived in and had connections to the [whatever] industry in [some city] would that have affected my life path for the better?” I think it isn’t healthy or reasonable to spend too much time indulging in these kinds of hypotheticals. But within the context of attributing the source of impact I think that there is some sense to it.
Rather than saying “Bob wrote a best-selling book” we should probably say that a team of marketers, copy editors, writing coaches, and other people combined efforts to produce the book, and Bob gets most of the credit.[2] Perhaps more things in life should have credits the way a movie does, listing all of the people that contributed directly to the effort.
I don’t have any data to suggest that the percent of people in EA that come from wealthy families in higher than the percent of non-EAs that come from wealthy families; this is a rough (and untested) hypothesis. I’d be fascinated to see a histogram of EAs by family income from ages 0-18, or something similar.
It kind of makes sense if Bob did most of the work that he should get most of the credit.