I don’t think that the point of a lot of our introductory pitches should to transfer the most bits of information, but rather to get people on the right track, interested and attracted to the idea.
I totally agree with this! Let me clarify my opinion:
I distinguish between a pitch and an explanation.
I think that pitches should maximize attraction, but also need to satisfy some level of explanations for the concept discussed.
I think that the common EA pitches are quite good at attracting people, but I believe we’re pretty bad at explaining what EA is (I’d love to hear if you’re not sharing this belief!)
I hope that being able to explain EA better:
will also improve our pitches by improving the explanation component of our pitches.
will help onboarding individuals once they were initially attracted by a good pitch.
I think one rule of thumb that can help people simplify the framing problem is to know who your audience is.
I think it’s great to frame the quality of a pitch by its fit to its audience. Yet what I’m missing in this framing is the size of the audience in question:
Many of my criticisms in this post can be thought of as “this articulation aims for a too narrow audience”, for instance, to an audience that tends to think very analytically.
Many of my suggestions in this post are trying to broaden the audience so it can be clearer and more convincing to a wider audience, without relying on their background or prior knowledge.
In addition, many of my suggestions are about explicitly and simplification (e.g. saying “time and money” instead of “resources”, or explicitly saying “donating, volunteering, and career choices”) and I think are relevant regardless to the audience we’re aiming to attract.
In general, I think that pitches should change drastically according to the audience in hand, while explanations should be (a bit) more audience-neutral.
Sorry if I got lost in the difference between a pitch and an explanation in your post. When we talk about one minute or equally short explanations of EA, I tend to think of them as pitches. In the EA world, I tend to think of long form education and discussion such as a fellowship program as an explanation. I like the distinction, but I would also suggest the line between the two isn’t clear cut. I think this is also indicated when your suggested guidelines are directed to both pitches and explanations.
My interpretation of what you wrote was that you felt that EA pitches were neither very good at attracting people nor explaining EA very well to them either, so its interesting to hear you think the pitches are good.
I like you suggestions, and I love the example of buying a car in your one minute pitch. Its a wonderful illumination of the idea that it’s “the thought that counts” in being kind, but in little else.
If I was to take a step back, though, I would also argue that knowing your audience is very important for even when explaining EA, as not every person looking to learn about EA is interested in all aspects of EA. Lots of people want to do more with their donations, but dont care about epistemics or consequentialism.
Lots of students want to figure out how to use their time and energy best, but dont worry about earning to give just yet.
Others are completely preoccupied by the philosophy of the far future, and couldnt care less about giving what we can.
Some people only care about the fact that EA is so strong on factory farming, but think AI is a fantasy.
There are not that many people who are concerned with knowing the whole of EA and being able to chart it. Most of those people participate in this forum. Knowing the true state of EA is a meta question more than anything to me, and not always useful to the average supporter. (I can talk about this more, but it would take some sapce.)
What the people who need an explanation to EA probably need most an explanation of how EA is relevant to what they care about. We need to frame EA for the audience we are addressing, and until they become fully engaged in EA, a true complete charting of EA for them is probably unnecessary, and for many I suspect overwhelming.
So for me, it goes back to knowing your audience. How can EA help them be better at what they want to do? How can they help us be a better movement? That is a key to building greater engagement, in my opinion.
Also, does anyone have an up-to-date mapping of EA right now?
Are you hoping to appeal to people who don’t think very analytically, or just to explain clearly that this is a very analytical community and it might not be as accessible or useful or fun for them if they are not also very analytical?
I actually think that some of the offputting words might help prevent bycatch.
Thank you Charlie!
I totally agree with this! Let me clarify my opinion:
I distinguish between a pitch and an explanation.
I think that pitches should maximize attraction, but also need to satisfy some level of explanations for the concept discussed.
I think that the common EA pitches are quite good at attracting people, but I believe we’re pretty bad at explaining what EA is (I’d love to hear if you’re not sharing this belief!)
I hope that being able to explain EA better:
will also improve our pitches by improving the explanation component of our pitches.
will help onboarding individuals once they were initially attracted by a good pitch.
I think it’s great to frame the quality of a pitch by its fit to its audience. Yet what I’m missing in this framing is the size of the audience in question:
Many of my criticisms in this post can be thought of as “this articulation aims for a too narrow audience”, for instance, to an audience that tends to think very analytically.
Many of my suggestions in this post are trying to broaden the audience so it can be clearer and more convincing to a wider audience, without relying on their background or prior knowledge.
In addition, many of my suggestions are about explicitly and simplification (e.g. saying “time and money” instead of “resources”, or explicitly saying “donating, volunteering, and career choices”) and I think are relevant regardless to the audience we’re aiming to attract.
In general, I think that pitches should change drastically according to the audience in hand, while explanations should be (a bit) more audience-neutral.
Hi Gidon! Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Sorry if I got lost in the difference between a pitch and an explanation in your post. When we talk about one minute or equally short explanations of EA, I tend to think of them as pitches. In the EA world, I tend to think of long form education and discussion such as a fellowship program as an explanation. I like the distinction, but I would also suggest the line between the two isn’t clear cut. I think this is also indicated when your suggested guidelines are directed to both pitches and explanations.
My interpretation of what you wrote was that you felt that EA pitches were neither very good at attracting people nor explaining EA very well to them either, so its interesting to hear you think the pitches are good.
I like you suggestions, and I love the example of buying a car in your one minute pitch. Its a wonderful illumination of the idea that it’s “the thought that counts” in being kind, but in little else.
If I was to take a step back, though, I would also argue that knowing your audience is very important for even when explaining EA, as not every person looking to learn about EA is interested in all aspects of EA. Lots of people want to do more with their donations, but dont care about epistemics or consequentialism.
Lots of students want to figure out how to use their time and energy best, but dont worry about earning to give just yet.
Others are completely preoccupied by the philosophy of the far future, and couldnt care less about giving what we can.
Some people only care about the fact that EA is so strong on factory farming, but think AI is a fantasy.
There are not that many people who are concerned with knowing the whole of EA and being able to chart it. Most of those people participate in this forum. Knowing the true state of EA is a meta question more than anything to me, and not always useful to the average supporter. (I can talk about this more, but it would take some sapce.)
What the people who need an explanation to EA probably need most an explanation of how EA is relevant to what they care about. We need to frame EA for the audience we are addressing, and until they become fully engaged in EA, a true complete charting of EA for them is probably unnecessary, and for many I suspect overwhelming.
So for me, it goes back to knowing your audience. How can EA help them be better at what they want to do? How can they help us be a better movement? That is a key to building greater engagement, in my opinion.
Also, does anyone have an up-to-date mapping of EA right now?
Are you hoping to appeal to people who don’t think very analytically, or just to explain clearly that this is a very analytical community and it might not be as accessible or useful or fun for them if they are not also very analytical?
I actually think that some of the offputting words might help prevent bycatch.