“Sam became a vegan and an effective altruism because he thought through the arguments and concluded they were correct, not because of feelings of guilt or empathy.”
There is so much in this sentence that captures the entire EA / non-EA division. Most especially, though, it captures the general public’s misunderstanding of what empathy is.
First is the implication that “following the arguments” means you don’t have empathy. This is so patently false. If anything, EA’s have more empathy—so much empathy that we want to do the most effective things for those who need help, rather than the things that give us personal satisfaction or assuage our guilty feelings.
The non-EA would say “I saw a blind person today, with a guide dog. I felt so much empathy that I decided to donate $50K to the charity that trains guide dogs.” (net result: one more guide dog trained for a person in a wealthy country, but massive feelings of self-satisfaction for the owner, who may even get to personally meet the dog and get thanked by its new owner).
The EA sees the same thing, and thinks “Imagine how terrible it must be to be blind and not even have a guide dog, maybe living in a country which doesn’t accommodate blind people the way the US does.” And, after some research, donates $50K to a charity that prevents blindness, saving the sight of maybe 1000 people in a poor country.
But still, in the eyes of many, the non-EA has shown more empathy, while the EA has just “followed the arguments”. People think empathy is about a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. But it’s not. Empathy is about getting inside someone’s head, seeing the world from their perspective and understanding what they need.
Second is the focus on the giver rather than the receiver.
The EA understands that a person in need needs help. They do not need empathy or sympathy or guilt. They need help. If they get that help from a cynical crypto-billionaire or from a generous kid who gives away her birthday savings, it makes no difference to them.
The non-EA focuses on the generosity of the kid, giving up toys and chocolate to help (and that is wonderful and fully to be encouraged) and on the calculated logic of the billionaire who will not even notice the money donated.
The EA focuses on the receiver, and on whether that person’s needs are met. This is far closer to true empathy.
I wonder if there’s a way for EA’s to fight back against our critics by explaining (in a positive way) that what we do and the way we think is empathy to the power of n, that the suggestion that we don’t have empathy is utterly false.
Part of the problem is that there’s nowhere you can actually donate $50k and prevent or cure 1k cases of blindness. The only [1] EA recommendation in this area is Hellen Keller International (recommended by GiveWell), but looking at their vision benefits writeup and BOTEC, linked from their cost-effectiveness model most of the supplementation is going to people who wouldn’t otherwise become blind. Yes, it’s two pills for ~$2.70, but interpreting GW’s rough estimate is that only 1:1,100 people who get the pill would otherwise become blind. [2] So about $3k to prevent a case of blindness via vitamin A supplementation.
(Note that vitamin A is unlikely to be the cheapest option, since the mortality benefits are the main reason GW has been working on evaluating it, so this is not an estimate of the cheapest way to avert blindness.)
[1] You might also think that Sightsavers would have something to do with vision, but GiveWell’s review is specifically for their deworming program.
[2] 1.3% fraction of kids with night blindness, 10% of those progress to full blindness, relative risk of night blindness post vitamin A supplementation is 32%. Combining these (1/(1.3% * 10% * (1-32%)) gives me 1,100x.
People think empathy is about a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. But it’s not. Empathy is about getting inside someone’s head, seeing the world from their perspective and understanding what they need.
Not a psychologist, but I’ve heard this distinction described as “cognitive empathy” vs “affective empathy”.
Empathy can be separated into two major facets. Cognitive empathy refers to the ability to recognize and understand another’s mental state (part of theory of mind (ToM) or mentalising) while affective empathy is the ability to share the feelings of others, without any direct emotional stimulation to oneself
I’m not aware of surveys being done, but I strongly suspect EAs have average to above-average affective empathy, and unusually high levels of cognitive empathy.
I hadn’t looked at it that way, but it makes so much sense.
But I would still say (as you might too) that EA’s tend to be more affectively empathetic than average. We do care.
There is this misrepresentation of EA’s as if it’s some kind of game for us, like Monopoly, but that is absolutely not representative of the EA’s I’ve interacted with.
”People think empathy is about a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. But it’s not. Empathy is about getting inside someone’s head, seeing the world from their perspective and understanding what they need.”
I think this comment is especially excellent. Technically there are different definitions of empathy, the most stark example of the difference being psycopaths who can have amazing cognitive empathy but zero affective empathy, but I still think this comment captures the heart of the issue well.
“Sam became a vegan and an effective altruism because he thought through the arguments and concluded they were correct, not because of feelings of guilt or empathy.”
There is so much in this sentence that captures the entire EA / non-EA division. Most especially, though, it captures the general public’s misunderstanding of what empathy is.
First is the implication that “following the arguments” means you don’t have empathy. This is so patently false. If anything, EA’s have more empathy—so much empathy that we want to do the most effective things for those who need help, rather than the things that give us personal satisfaction or assuage our guilty feelings.
The non-EA would say “I saw a blind person today, with a guide dog. I felt so much empathy that I decided to donate $50K to the charity that trains guide dogs.” (net result: one more guide dog trained for a person in a wealthy country, but massive feelings of self-satisfaction for the owner, who may even get to personally meet the dog and get thanked by its new owner).
The EA sees the same thing, and thinks “Imagine how terrible it must be to be blind and not even have a guide dog, maybe living in a country which doesn’t accommodate blind people the way the US does.” And, after some research, donates $50K to a charity that prevents blindness, saving the sight of maybe 1000 people in a poor country.
But still, in the eyes of many, the non-EA has shown more empathy, while the EA has just “followed the arguments”. People think empathy is about a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. But it’s not. Empathy is about getting inside someone’s head, seeing the world from their perspective and understanding what they need.
Second is the focus on the giver rather than the receiver.
The EA understands that a person in need needs help. They do not need empathy or sympathy or guilt. They need help. If they get that help from a cynical crypto-billionaire or from a generous kid who gives away her birthday savings, it makes no difference to them.
The non-EA focuses on the generosity of the kid, giving up toys and chocolate to help (and that is wonderful and fully to be encouraged) and on the calculated logic of the billionaire who will not even notice the money donated.
The EA focuses on the receiver, and on whether that person’s needs are met. This is far closer to true empathy.
I wonder if there’s a way for EA’s to fight back against our critics by explaining (in a positive way) that what we do and the way we think is empathy to the power of n, that the suggestion that we don’t have empathy is utterly false.
This is tangential to your point, but I don’t think using the “prevent blindness in poor countries vs train guide dogs” comparison they way you’re doing it is a great idea; more here: Fact checking comparison between trachoma surgeries and guide dogs.
Part of the problem is that there’s nowhere you can actually donate $50k and prevent or cure 1k cases of blindness. The only [1] EA recommendation in this area is Hellen Keller International (recommended by GiveWell), but looking at their vision benefits writeup and BOTEC, linked from their cost-effectiveness model most of the supplementation is going to people who wouldn’t otherwise become blind. Yes, it’s two pills for ~$2.70, but interpreting GW’s rough estimate is that only 1:1,100 people who get the pill would otherwise become blind. [2] So about $3k to prevent a case of blindness via vitamin A supplementation.
(Note that vitamin A is unlikely to be the cheapest option, since the mortality benefits are the main reason GW has been working on evaluating it, so this is not an estimate of the cheapest way to avert blindness.)
[1] You might also think that Sightsavers would have something to do with vision, but GiveWell’s review is specifically for their deworming program.
[2] 1.3% fraction of kids with night blindness, 10% of those progress to full blindness, relative risk of night blindness post vitamin A supplementation is 32%. Combining these (1/(1.3% * 10% * (1-32%)) gives me 1,100x.
Thanks Jeff,
It’s helpful to have the facts. I will look for a better example next time!
Cheers
Denis
Not a psychologist, but I’ve heard this distinction described as “cognitive empathy” vs “affective empathy”.
Cognitive and Affective Empathy in Eating Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis—PMC (nih.gov)
I’m not aware of surveys being done, but I strongly suspect EAs have average to above-average affective empathy, and unusually high levels of cognitive empathy.
Semi-related: There’s this great video from Dr K about how smart kids develop a reliance on cognitive empathy, and that reminds me of a lot of EAs.
What a great build! Thank you for this!
I hadn’t looked at it that way, but it makes so much sense.
But I would still say (as you might too) that EA’s tend to be more affectively empathetic than average. We do care.
There is this misrepresentation of EA’s as if it’s some kind of game for us, like Monopoly, but that is absolutely not representative of the EA’s I’ve interacted with.
I really appreciated this comment nice one
”People think empathy is about a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. But it’s not. Empathy is about getting inside someone’s head, seeing the world from their perspective and understanding what they need.”
I think this comment is especially excellent. Technically there are different definitions of empathy, the most stark example of the difference being psycopaths who can have amazing cognitive empathy but zero affective empathy, but I still think this comment captures the heart of the issue well.