I like this framing a lot. I particularly like the idea of replacing the phrase “doing good” with “helping others” and “maximization” with “prioritization.”
I understand the impulse to mention volunteering before donations and careers because people naturally connect it with doing good. But I think it would be misleading for the following reasons:
As you said, there is currently very little emphasis on volunteering in EA
In most cases, individuals can do much more good by changing their career path or donating
I think we should be as accurate as we can when communicating EA. Being inaccurate might give people the wrong idea and make the movement seem dishonest.
I help a run a university group and in that context mentioning careers first is probably best choice, because
American undergrads often want to have an impactful career, so “helping others with your career” isn’t a strange concept to them
It’s probably the most important thing for individuals to focus on
It’s what our club focuses on the most
But things might be different if you aren’t talking to undergrads.
Yup, this also lines up with how (American) undergrads empirically seem to get most enthusiastic about career-centered content (maybe because they’re starved for good career guidance/direction).
And a nitpick:
In most cases, individuals can do much more good by changing their career path or donating
I initially nodded along as I read this, but then I realized that intuition came partly from comparing effective donations with ineffective volunteering, which might not be comparing apples to apples. Do effective donations actually beat effective volunteering? I suspect many people can have more impact through highly effective volunteering, e.g.:
Volunteering in movement-building/fundraising/recruitment
High-skill volunteering for orgs focused on having positive long-term impacts, or potentially for animal advocacy orgs (since these seem especially skill-constrained)
Volunteering with a mainstream policy org to later land an impactful job there (although this one’s iffy as an example since it’s kind of about careers)
(Still agree that emphasizing volunteering wouldn’t be very representative of what the movement focuses on.)
Fair enough. I would guess you can usually have a higher impact through your career since you are doing something you’ve specialized in. But the first two examples you bring up seem valid.
Controversial opinion, but I think most volunteers are probably fairly ineffective, enough to round down to zero.
However, it’s super easy to be an effective volunteer. Simply: A) Be autonomous/self-motivated B) Put in some significant amount of effort per week C) Be consistent over a long period of time (long enough to climb up the skill curve for the tasks at hand)
Thank you for this feedback lukasberglund and Maricio, I think I underestimated the misrepresentation argument, so I highly appreciate this.
About your second argument on the impact of volunteer guidance, and the discussion with Mauricio: I entirely agree with your opinion on the impact of volunteering, but I think that the main case for including volunteering in the pitch (and in general, investing in guidance for effective volunteering) is that it for specific individuals, who are interested in volunteering, this can be the entry point that would attract them to learn more about EA—whether we eventually help them with prioritizing volunteer opportunities or with career/donation decisions.
For this reason (and because specific volunteering opportunities can be highly impactful, as you both discussed), I still think it’s beneficial to include volunteering on EA pitches. I believe that the argument about misrepresentation makes a good case for not mentioning volunteering as the first on the list, but I don’t think that the order is of high significance.
I’ll soon make some updates to the post about that. Thank you both again for your feedback!
I like this framing a lot. I particularly like the idea of replacing the phrase “doing good” with “helping others” and “maximization” with “prioritization.”
I understand the impulse to mention volunteering before donations and careers because people naturally connect it with doing good. But I think it would be misleading for the following reasons:
As you said, there is currently very little emphasis on volunteering in EA
In most cases, individuals can do much more good by changing their career path or donating
I think we should be as accurate as we can when communicating EA. Being inaccurate might give people the wrong idea and make the movement seem dishonest.
I help a run a university group and in that context mentioning careers first is probably best choice, because
American undergrads often want to have an impactful career, so “helping others with your career” isn’t a strange concept to them
It’s probably the most important thing for individuals to focus on
It’s what our club focuses on the most
But things might be different if you aren’t talking to undergrads.
Yup, this also lines up with how (American) undergrads empirically seem to get most enthusiastic about career-centered content (maybe because they’re starved for good career guidance/direction).
And a nitpick:
I initially nodded along as I read this, but then I realized that intuition came partly from comparing effective donations with ineffective volunteering, which might not be comparing apples to apples. Do effective donations actually beat effective volunteering? I suspect many people can have more impact through highly effective volunteering, e.g.:
Volunteering in movement-building/fundraising/recruitment
High-skill volunteering for orgs focused on having positive long-term impacts, or potentially for animal advocacy orgs (since these seem especially skill-constrained)
Volunteering with a mainstream policy org to later land an impactful job there (although this one’s iffy as an example since it’s kind of about careers)
(Still agree that emphasizing volunteering wouldn’t be very representative of what the movement focuses on.)
Fair enough. I would guess you can usually have a higher impact through your career since you are doing something you’ve specialized in. But the first two examples you bring up seem valid.
Controversial opinion, butI think most volunteers are probably fairly ineffective, enough to round down to zero.However, it’s super easy to be an effective volunteer. Simply: A) Be autonomous/self-motivated B) Put in some significant amount of effort per week C) Be consistent over a long period of time (long enough to climb up the skill curve for the tasks at hand)
I agree with you. See Volunteering Isn’t Free as one example of elucidation for why taking on volunteers is hard, often net negative.
That said, I do not think this is a controversial opinion, whether within EA or overall. :)
Fair enough, perhaps it just feels a little risky for me to say “out-loud”
Thank you for this feedback lukasberglund and Maricio, I think I underestimated the misrepresentation argument, so I highly appreciate this.
About your second argument on the impact of volunteer guidance, and the discussion with Mauricio: I entirely agree with your opinion on the impact of volunteering, but I think that the main case for including volunteering in the pitch (and in general, investing in guidance for effective volunteering) is that it for specific individuals, who are interested in volunteering, this can be the entry point that would attract them to learn more about EA—whether we eventually help them with prioritizing volunteer opportunities or with career/donation decisions.
For this reason (and because specific volunteering opportunities can be highly impactful, as you both discussed), I still think it’s beneficial to include volunteering on EA pitches. I believe that the argument about misrepresentation makes a good case for not mentioning volunteering as the first on the list, but I don’t think that the order is of high significance.
I’ll soon make some updates to the post about that. Thank you both again for your feedback!