I find it difficult to square this argument with the observed data. The distribution of impact in EA is very skewed such that a small number of people have almost all the impact. For example, Cari Tuna’s impact is worth more than every single GWWC pledger combined. Similar things can probably be said about Holden and Eli, Eliezer, Nick Bostrom and others. For these individuals small increases in the degree of dedication that occurred early on likely resulted in huge increases in total impact.
It seems like we should expect the same phenomenon to hold true in the future. If so, increasing the dedication of those likely to be at the peak of total impact is likely to generate much more marginal impact than adding new members. Interested in your thoughts.
EAs seem to have more “impact inequality” than the population in general. For example, among charitable donations in general, about 20% (IIRC) come from the extremely wealthy, but among EAs it’s more like 70%. Or to put it another way, about 1 in 500,000 Americans are involved in EA, but 1 in 200 of the Forbes 400 are involved in EA. So you might expect EA to move closer to the population distribution as it grows.
I think this is a really important phenomenon to unpack.
On a meta-level, regarding Cari Tuna, Holden and Eli, yourself, Eliezer, Nick Bostrom, Peter Singer, etc., this is one reason I think it may be beneficial to distinguish the big notables of the EA movement from the category of “dedicated,” although I don’t think the term “rock star” I used above is optimal. Such high-achieving EA members stand out for the degree of their contribution to and impact on the movement, whether through their financial giving such as Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz, through their intellectual contributions such as Peter Singer, or through their EA movement infrastructure work as the rest of the people named.
Yet we cannot predict in advance who will bring such benefits. It may be that people who are now becoming typical EA members are the ones who will be the next Cari, Eliezer, Nick, etc. For the most part, all of us were typical EA members before becoming dedicated or high-achieving ones. I know that was the case with me. Another example is Tom Ash—he told me how he got involved with the movement slowly over time, and now he is a central figure. Not sure about your own path :-)
So I think there’s a high downside to focusing on increasing the dedication of those likely to be at the peak of total impact, at the cost of placing demands for higher involvement on typical EA members. Right now, my perception is that the movement is too skewed in the direction of placing high demands for involvement, and not celebrating enough the things that typical EA members do.
Now, I think it would be quite beneficial if we can have separate messages targeted at those at the peak of total impact, encouraging them to do more because of their impact, and and those who are closer to the casual pole of EA engagement, signaling to them inclusiveness and acknowledgment. This would take some work, but is certainly doable. Audience segmentation is a well-known strategy in public communication, and this may be an appropriate place for it. In other words, have different messages targeted at different EA audiences, optimizing it to the needs of each audience.
I don’t know what we’re arguing for anymore. I may be willing to agree that given the choice between “indiscriminately cause more people to be EAs” and “indiscriminately cause existing EAs to be more dedicated” we should pick the first option.
But, this is just not the case we’re in. It was possible to predict in advance that Cari Tuna was going to be very important (she had billions of dollars). It was possible to predict in advance that Eliezer or Nick Bostrom were going to be important (they are actual geniuses). Given these predictions it makes sense to spend more time talking to them and getting them on board with the relevant ideas. So, the argument you’re making doesn’t seem to generalize anywhere.
Also, you’re assuming a particular (and unusual) intervention mechanism—moral guilt/placing demands. This doesn’t seem like the way to increase dedication to me, so I think you’re rejecting a strategy that few people are actually employing.
I may be willing to agree that given the choice between “indiscriminately cause more people to be EAs” and “indiscriminately cause existing EAs to be more dedicated” we should pick the first option. But, this is just not the case we’re in It was possible to predict in advance that Cari Tuna was going to be very important (she had billions of dollars)… So, the argument you’re making doesn’t seem to generalize anywhere.
The argument generalizes to when we do broad outreach around effective giving, rather than talking to individuals. I very much agree we should focus in our individual conversations on converting high-value people like Cari Tuna or Nick Bostrom. On the other hand, we cannot predict in advance many high-value people, like Tom Ash, who got involved casually and slowly, and right now is a central figure in the movement.
Jon Behar brought up some additional relevant points in his comment.
Also, you’re assuming a particular (and unusual) intervention mechanism—moral guilt/placing demands. This doesn’t seem like the way to increase dedication to me, so I think you’re rejecting a strategy that few people are actually employing.
I think the comments of Taryn East above exemplify that this “placing demands” is what many people experience. I have also heard from plenty of others who left EA that they left because of this perception of ratcheting demands. Now, let me be clear—this may not the explicit intention of the intervention mechanism that people are employing. Yet it doesn’t matter what intervention mechanism people think they are actually using—the key is what outcomes are occurring. If the outcome is that people experience the sensation of moral guilt/pressure, this is a big problem for the movement being welcoming and inclusive.
To help address this topic, I started a discussion on the EA FB, you might be interested in checking it out.
I find it difficult to square this argument with the observed data. The distribution of impact in EA is very skewed such that a small number of people have almost all the impact. For example, Cari Tuna’s impact is worth more than every single GWWC pledger combined. Similar things can probably be said about Holden and Eli, Eliezer, Nick Bostrom and others. For these individuals small increases in the degree of dedication that occurred early on likely resulted in huge increases in total impact.
It seems like we should expect the same phenomenon to hold true in the future. If so, increasing the dedication of those likely to be at the peak of total impact is likely to generate much more marginal impact than adding new members. Interested in your thoughts.
EAs seem to have more “impact inequality” than the population in general. For example, among charitable donations in general, about 20% (IIRC) come from the extremely wealthy, but among EAs it’s more like 70%. Or to put it another way, about 1 in 500,000 Americans are involved in EA, but 1 in 200 of the Forbes 400 are involved in EA. So you might expect EA to move closer to the population distribution as it grows.
I think this is a really important phenomenon to unpack.
On a meta-level, regarding Cari Tuna, Holden and Eli, yourself, Eliezer, Nick Bostrom, Peter Singer, etc., this is one reason I think it may be beneficial to distinguish the big notables of the EA movement from the category of “dedicated,” although I don’t think the term “rock star” I used above is optimal. Such high-achieving EA members stand out for the degree of their contribution to and impact on the movement, whether through their financial giving such as Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz, through their intellectual contributions such as Peter Singer, or through their EA movement infrastructure work as the rest of the people named.
Yet we cannot predict in advance who will bring such benefits. It may be that people who are now becoming typical EA members are the ones who will be the next Cari, Eliezer, Nick, etc. For the most part, all of us were typical EA members before becoming dedicated or high-achieving ones. I know that was the case with me. Another example is Tom Ash—he told me how he got involved with the movement slowly over time, and now he is a central figure. Not sure about your own path :-)
So I think there’s a high downside to focusing on increasing the dedication of those likely to be at the peak of total impact, at the cost of placing demands for higher involvement on typical EA members. Right now, my perception is that the movement is too skewed in the direction of placing high demands for involvement, and not celebrating enough the things that typical EA members do.
Now, I think it would be quite beneficial if we can have separate messages targeted at those at the peak of total impact, encouraging them to do more because of their impact, and and those who are closer to the casual pole of EA engagement, signaling to them inclusiveness and acknowledgment. This would take some work, but is certainly doable. Audience segmentation is a well-known strategy in public communication, and this may be an appropriate place for it. In other words, have different messages targeted at different EA audiences, optimizing it to the needs of each audience.
I don’t know what we’re arguing for anymore. I may be willing to agree that given the choice between “indiscriminately cause more people to be EAs” and “indiscriminately cause existing EAs to be more dedicated” we should pick the first option.
But, this is just not the case we’re in. It was possible to predict in advance that Cari Tuna was going to be very important (she had billions of dollars). It was possible to predict in advance that Eliezer or Nick Bostrom were going to be important (they are actual geniuses). Given these predictions it makes sense to spend more time talking to them and getting them on board with the relevant ideas. So, the argument you’re making doesn’t seem to generalize anywhere.
Also, you’re assuming a particular (and unusual) intervention mechanism—moral guilt/placing demands. This doesn’t seem like the way to increase dedication to me, so I think you’re rejecting a strategy that few people are actually employing.
I’d like to think we’re having a dialectic truth-seeking, rather than an argument :-)
The argument generalizes to when we do broad outreach around effective giving, rather than talking to individuals. I very much agree we should focus in our individual conversations on converting high-value people like Cari Tuna or Nick Bostrom. On the other hand, we cannot predict in advance many high-value people, like Tom Ash, who got involved casually and slowly, and right now is a central figure in the movement.
Jon Behar brought up some additional relevant points in his comment.
I think the comments of Taryn East above exemplify that this “placing demands” is what many people experience. I have also heard from plenty of others who left EA that they left because of this perception of ratcheting demands. Now, let me be clear—this may not the explicit intention of the intervention mechanism that people are employing. Yet it doesn’t matter what intervention mechanism people think they are actually using—the key is what outcomes are occurring. If the outcome is that people experience the sensation of moral guilt/pressure, this is a big problem for the movement being welcoming and inclusive.
To help address this topic, I started a discussion on the EA FB, you might be interested in checking it out.