Depending on the specification of the tactics you plan to use, I think this could be quite a bad idea.
When I first started working at Effective Altruism Outreach, my initial sense was that the best thing to do was spread the EA ideas as widely as possible. Over time, I began to wonder how exactly the EA community generates value. It now seems to me that what we do well is generate interesting intellectual content and that this content attracts a community of early adopters keen to use the ideas in the real world. It may be that these ideas are sufficiently well-developed that the only thing we need to do is spread them more, but I doubt it.
Spreading the ideas more widely has some probability of generating much more money for effective charities. But, it has a significant probability of causing the EA community to become a very different thing that it is now. It may cause EA to become a community focused on spreading itself and less focused on ensuring that we continue to develop ideas worth spreading. I think we will be faced with many situations where we can either build a better epistemic community or we can build a larger community. Choosing the larger community seems to misunderstand how EA generates value and misunderstands the long-term potential that this movement has.
Cross-posted from the other post where you made a similar comment.
Thanks for pointing out the challenges here. I agree that there is a significant danger if we aim to change the EA community itself.
However, I’m not sure I see the danger of spreading EA ideas. What is dangerous about suggesting that people figure out their values and goals for giving, and then give in accord to their actual values and goals? What is the danger in highlighting thinking errors in giving, and encouraging people to avoid these thinking errors? What is dangerous about suggesting that people should research charities before giving? What is dangerous about suggesting that they attend to GiveWell as a valuable source of evaluating charities?
Also, there is a ton of research on this topic. For most “emotionally-driven donors” the evidence suggests that we cannot shift their donation decisions at all. http://www.hopeconsulting.us/moneyforgood
I see your point and definitely agree on the importance of not becoming a movement focused on its own growth. However, I think an equally important concern is that the movement should include a truly diverse array of viewpoints and values, which may include people who value emotion more highly. Also, emotionally-driven/logic-driven is a spectrum, and in my experience EAs tend to be on the extreme side of logic driven. So appealing to more emotionally-driven donors may really mean appealing to donors closer to the middle of that spectrum.
Depending on the specification of the tactics you plan to use, I think this could be quite a bad idea.
When I first started working at Effective Altruism Outreach, my initial sense was that the best thing to do was spread the EA ideas as widely as possible. Over time, I began to wonder how exactly the EA community generates value. It now seems to me that what we do well is generate interesting intellectual content and that this content attracts a community of early adopters keen to use the ideas in the real world. It may be that these ideas are sufficiently well-developed that the only thing we need to do is spread them more, but I doubt it.
Spreading the ideas more widely has some probability of generating much more money for effective charities. But, it has a significant probability of causing the EA community to become a very different thing that it is now. It may cause EA to become a community focused on spreading itself and less focused on ensuring that we continue to develop ideas worth spreading. I think we will be faced with many situations where we can either build a better epistemic community or we can build a larger community. Choosing the larger community seems to misunderstand how EA generates value and misunderstands the long-term potential that this movement has.
My talk at EA Global: Melbourne touches on many of these ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKx0ithQdHQ
Cross-posted from the other post where you made a similar comment.
Thanks for pointing out the challenges here. I agree that there is a significant danger if we aim to change the EA community itself.
However, I’m not sure I see the danger of spreading EA ideas. What is dangerous about suggesting that people figure out their values and goals for giving, and then give in accord to their actual values and goals? What is the danger in highlighting thinking errors in giving, and encouraging people to avoid these thinking errors? What is dangerous about suggesting that people should research charities before giving? What is dangerous about suggesting that they attend to GiveWell as a valuable source of evaluating charities?
Happy to update my beliefs about that.
Also, there is a ton of research on this topic. For most “emotionally-driven donors” the evidence suggests that we cannot shift their donation decisions at all. http://www.hopeconsulting.us/moneyforgood
I see your point and definitely agree on the importance of not becoming a movement focused on its own growth. However, I think an equally important concern is that the movement should include a truly diverse array of viewpoints and values, which may include people who value emotion more highly. Also, emotionally-driven/logic-driven is a spectrum, and in my experience EAs tend to be on the extreme side of logic driven. So appealing to more emotionally-driven donors may really mean appealing to donors closer to the middle of that spectrum.