Those are definitely improvements! One issue with “casual” is that it’s a bit negative—and dismissive of people who, say, give 10% or 20% of their income. I like “part-time” / “full-time” the most.
“Part-time” and “full-time” sound work-related, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people initially read them as applying only to earning to give.
Sorry, I realize I’m doing the annoying thing where someone criticizes a term and then doesn’t come up with a replacement. I honestly don’t have a good replacement.
(Trying to get creative: “flex EA”, “10% EA”, “decilife EA”, “adequate EA”, “regular EA”, “relaxed EA”, “lifestyle EA” (ambiguous?), “junior EA”? “EA-curious” for people who haven’t donated much time/money yet?)
I believe the category of membership in the EA movement should apply only to people who are fully value-aligned with the movement, meaning that they hold “doing the most good for the world” as a significant and notable value. The question of where they are on the spectrum of involvement in the EA movement would correlate to how high they perceive this value in comparison to other values they hold, as demonstrated by their behavior.
“Full time” and “part time” do sound less judgmental than the other terms (actually I’m not so confident about about that, calling someone a “part time EA” seems pretty dismissive).
But they seem to misdescribe the concept we’re actually talking about: you can be a full time EA worker and pretty casual, low-sacrifice-level and conversely you can be part time and super-dedicated, enormously self-sacrificial.
actually I’m not so confident about about that, calling someone a “part time EA” seems pretty dismissive
I disagree. I think most part-time EAs would be happy to admit that they don’t try to do the most good with anywhere close to all of their time or resources. If they’re not then, as Rob says, this is an inevitable result of their not being happy to admit what they actually do.
As to this being a distinct concept from full-time EA workers, I think we can make that clear. It’s not a perfect one but a better one hasn’t been suggested.
Those are definitely improvements! One issue with “casual” is that it’s a bit negative—and dismissive of people who, say, give 10% or 20% of their income. I like “part-time” / “full-time” the most.
I brought up brainstorming new terms in the other thread at http://effective-altruism.com/ea/sl/celebrating_all_who_are_in_effective_altruism/6cp?context=1#6cp
I’m happy with full-time and part-time. Doesn’t seem insulting and is fairly descriptive.
“Part-time” and “full-time” sound work-related, and I wouldn’t be surprised if people initially read them as applying only to earning to give.
Sorry, I realize I’m doing the annoying thing where someone criticizes a term and then doesn’t come up with a replacement. I honestly don’t have a good replacement.
“Associate EA” / “Dedicated EA”?
(Trying to get creative: “flex EA”, “10% EA”, “decilife EA”, “adequate EA”, “regular EA”, “relaxed EA”, “lifestyle EA” (ambiguous?), “junior EA”? “EA-curious” for people who haven’t donated much time/money yet?)
I like “EA-curious.”
Agreed. Someone earning to give doesn’t meet the literal characterization of “full time” EA.
How about fully aligned and partially aligned (and any other modifier to “aligned” that might be descriptive)?
I believe the category of membership in the EA movement should apply only to people who are fully value-aligned with the movement, meaning that they hold “doing the most good for the world” as a significant and notable value. The question of where they are on the spectrum of involvement in the EA movement would correlate to how high they perceive this value in comparison to other values they hold, as demonstrated by their behavior.
The same problem occurred to me. You’re probably right that “part-time” and “full-time” are better.
“Full time” and “part time” do sound less judgmental than the other terms (actually I’m not so confident about about that, calling someone a “part time EA” seems pretty dismissive). But they seem to misdescribe the concept we’re actually talking about: you can be a full time EA worker and pretty casual, low-sacrifice-level and conversely you can be part time and super-dedicated, enormously self-sacrificial.
I disagree. I think most part-time EAs would be happy to admit that they don’t try to do the most good with anywhere close to all of their time or resources. If they’re not then, as Rob says, this is an inevitable result of their not being happy to admit what they actually do.
As to this being a distinct concept from full-time EA workers, I think we can make that clear. It’s not a perfect one but a better one hasn’t been suggested.