I think that earning-to-give and donating to AMF and GiveDirectly is very cool. (I did this full-time for a while, and now advise a private foundation whose funders also do this full-time.)
In fact, I canât think of any people Iâve met within EA who donât think doing this is very cool, and I can only think of a few who would clearly ârankâ ETG below other types of work in terms of âcoolnessâ. The most common reaction Iâve heard to people who discussed their choice to pursue ETG or direct work outside of EA (for example, studying public health with an eye toward biosecurity or neglected tropical diseases) hasnât been âokay, good for you, too bad you donât work at an EA orgâ. Itâs been âthatâs really wonderful, congratulations!â
(I do know that some people have heard something closer to the first reaction, which is disappointingâand part of the reason Iâm so forcefully expressing my beliefs here.)
Note that âcoolnessâ is not the same as âimpactâ; personally, I think itâs likely that working at GiveWell is probably higher-impact than earning-to-give and donating $10,000/âyear. But that doesnât mean that working at GiveWell is cooler. In both cases, someone is devoting their life to helping others in a way that aligns with my core values in life.
The fact that the GiveWell person passed an extra work trial (assuming they both applied to GiveWellâmaybe they didnât, and the ETG person just really likes their job!) is trivial compared to the overarching fact of âholy cow, youâre both using your lives to improve other lives, it doesnât get much cooler than thatâ.
Iâd feel exactly the same way about someone whose life didnât lead them down the âfancy four-year degreeâ plan and who donates $1000/âyear because thatâs really all they can spare. When it comes to my internal view of âcoolnessâ, itâs actually the thought that counts, as long as the thought involves carefully considering the best ways to use oneâs resources.
The most common reaction Iâve heard to people who discussed their choice to pursue ETG or direct work outside of EA (for example, studying public health with an eye toward biosecurity or neglected tropical diseases) hasnât been âokay, good for you, too bad you donât work at an EA orgâ. Itâs been âthatâs really wonderful, congratulations!â
Iâm really glad thatâs been your experience and I acknowledge that maybe my experience isnât typical.
My experience has been more pessimistic. Honestly, I usually encounter conversations that feel more like this:
Bob: âHi, I can donate $10,000 a year to the EA movement. GiveWell says that could save 4-5 lives a year, and itâs quite possible we could even find better giving opportunities than GiveWell top charities. This is super exciting!â
Alice: âPff, $10K/âyr isnât really that much. We donât need that. You should do direct work instead.â
Bob: âOk, how about I research biosecurity?â
Alice: âNah, youâd probably mess that up. We should just let FHI handle that. We canât talk about this further because of infohazards.â
...Obviously this is dramatized for effect, but Iâve never seen a community so excited to turn away money.
In addition to what Peter describes, if we do a simple content analysis of forum threads or blog posts in the last 3 or so years, ETG feels like itâs become invisible. Long term EAs like you and me most likely do still think itâs cool because when we became EAs it was a huge part of it and probably a big part of what drew us in (in my case, certainlyâI became an EA the year GWWC was launched). But that doesnât mean that this is the subtext that newer EAs are getting. I feel like the opposite is true, and I find that deeply concerning.
I think that earning-to-give and donating to AMF and GiveDirectly is very cool. (I did this full-time for a while, and now advise a private foundation whose funders also do this full-time.)
In fact, I canât think of any people Iâve met within EA who donât think doing this is very cool, and I can only think of a few who would clearly ârankâ ETG below other types of work in terms of âcoolnessâ. The most common reaction Iâve heard to people who discussed their choice to pursue ETG or direct work outside of EA (for example, studying public health with an eye toward biosecurity or neglected tropical diseases) hasnât been âokay, good for you, too bad you donât work at an EA orgâ. Itâs been âthatâs really wonderful, congratulations!â
(I do know that some people have heard something closer to the first reaction, which is disappointingâand part of the reason Iâm so forcefully expressing my beliefs here.)
Note that âcoolnessâ is not the same as âimpactâ; personally, I think itâs likely that working at GiveWell is probably higher-impact than earning-to-give and donating $10,000/âyear. But that doesnât mean that working at GiveWell is cooler. In both cases, someone is devoting their life to helping others in a way that aligns with my core values in life.
The fact that the GiveWell person passed an extra work trial (assuming they both applied to GiveWellâmaybe they didnât, and the ETG person just really likes their job!) is trivial compared to the overarching fact of âholy cow, youâre both using your lives to improve other lives, it doesnât get much cooler than thatâ.
Iâd feel exactly the same way about someone whose life didnât lead them down the âfancy four-year degreeâ plan and who donates $1000/âyear because thatâs really all they can spare. When it comes to my internal view of âcoolnessâ, itâs actually the thought that counts, as long as the thought involves carefully considering the best ways to use oneâs resources.
Iâm really glad thatâs been your experience and I acknowledge that maybe my experience isnât typical.
My experience has been more pessimistic. Honestly, I usually encounter conversations that feel more like this:
Bob: âHi, I can donate $10,000 a year to the EA movement. GiveWell says that could save 4-5 lives a year, and itâs quite possible we could even find better giving opportunities than GiveWell top charities. This is super exciting!â
Alice: âPff, $10K/âyr isnât really that much. We donât need that. You should do direct work instead.â
Bob: âOk, how about I research biosecurity?â
Alice: âNah, youâd probably mess that up. We should just let FHI handle that. We canât talk about this further because of infohazards.â
...Obviously this is dramatized for effect, but Iâve never seen a community so excited to turn away money.
In addition to what Peter describes, if we do a simple content analysis of forum threads or blog posts in the last 3 or so years, ETG feels like itâs become invisible. Long term EAs like you and me most likely do still think itâs cool because when we became EAs it was a huge part of it and probably a big part of what drew us in (in my case, certainlyâI became an EA the year GWWC was launched). But that doesnât mean that this is the subtext that newer EAs are getting. I feel like the opposite is true, and I find that deeply concerning.