A key factor, which will vary between movements, will be how much the opposition cares and acts. Some thing elicit more hostile actions than others, not necessarily in proportion to the extent to which they elicit positive actions from other sectors of the population. Likewise, for some movements everyone starts with a tendency towards positive or neutral inclination.
I absolutely agree—in fact I changed some of the language when you sent me this comment :) (but you may have missed it, since it wasn’t where you commented).
We could ask what implications there are from this for effective altruism? I guess that the thing most likely to elicit hostile responses is the suggestion that there is a moral obligation to give, so this would provide an argument for framing it as an opportunity rather than an obligation.
Aha, I looked for that but didn’t see it where I commented! I guess I should do a ‘diff’ (unless you want to point to the change :-)
I think you’re right that that sort of thing—and in general anything likely to prompt defensiveness—is most likely to elicit hostile reactions to EA. Negative judgements of people are the main cause of defensiveness. EAs (myself not included!) do sometimes make these judgements, and often say things that imply or at least risk suggesting them (whether misleadingly or not).
In addition, veg*nism is associated with strong negative judgements of people. It prompts massive defensiveness and rationalisation on the part of meat eaters for this reason. To the extent that EA is associated with veg*nism, that’ll bleed over.
On the positive side of the ledger, EA is primarily concerned with helping others, and these others are normally distant in some sense, and are groups that most people are neutral-to-positive about. It also has a focus on private action, as opposed to enforced social action through the state. This all reduces the effect to which it threatens people’s interests, and thus the extent to which it’ll promote defensiveness and hostility.
In addition, veg*nism is associated with strong negative judgements of people. It prompts massive defensiveness and rationalisation on the part of meat eaters for this reason. To the extent that EA is associated with veg*nism, that’ll bleed over.
Actually, data suggests most people have positive associations of veg*nism. EA actually seems to have some of the most negativity towards veg*nism that I’ve seen.
EA actually seems to have some of the most negativity towards veg*nism that I’ve seen.
That might be because some vegans associated with the EA community have a hardline “meat is murder” recruiting strategy, contrasting with typical vegans in the population at large.
It doesn’t seem to me that the proportion of vegans with that approach is higher in communities around EA than in other communities. They don’t seem particularly vocal either. I could be wrong.
These people operate in the San Francisco area and have substantial overlap w/ the EA community there: http://directactioneverywhere.com/ My vague impression is that they’ve been pretty divisive but I don’t have much firsthand knowledge.
I’d love to believe that, but that source doesn’t seem very reliable or persuasive (one small point: aren’t the %s it cites significant overestimates?) Do you have other evidence for it? And do you disagree that suggestions that meat is murder and people are morally obliged to stop eating it provoke massive defensiveness and opposition?
Just to be clear, my comment was disagreeing with this claim:
In addition, veg*nism is associated with strong negative judgements of people.
But to your questions, there’s not very robust evidence in either direction that I know of. And I think there’s an important distinction between defensiveness and negativity. An example to illustrate this is military service. Most people think highly of military people, but would react with great defensiveness if you suggested they had a moral obligation to join the military. If veganism is similar, then we might expect that people would be excited about a high number of military people in EA but would only become defensive if you brought it up as a moral obligation.
More importantly, however, EA brings up a lot of moral obligations. I mean, donating 10% of your income is pretty widespread, as is being willing to reject your current altruistic endeavors if they’re ineffective. I rarely see anyone in EA bring up concerns about these things being offputting, but it comes up almost every time veg*nism is discussed. I think this is an example of motivated reasoning.
Good points. Definitely a case for trying to avoid those statements that may imply judgement, and for playing down associations between effective altruism and veg*nism.
A key factor, which will vary between movements, will be how much the opposition cares and acts. Some thing elicit more hostile actions than others, not necessarily in proportion to the extent to which they elicit positive actions from other sectors of the population. Likewise, for some movements everyone starts with a tendency towards positive or neutral inclination.
I absolutely agree—in fact I changed some of the language when you sent me this comment :) (but you may have missed it, since it wasn’t where you commented).
We could ask what implications there are from this for effective altruism? I guess that the thing most likely to elicit hostile responses is the suggestion that there is a moral obligation to give, so this would provide an argument for framing it as an opportunity rather than an obligation.
Aha, I looked for that but didn’t see it where I commented! I guess I should do a ‘diff’ (unless you want to point to the change :-)
I think you’re right that that sort of thing—and in general anything likely to prompt defensiveness—is most likely to elicit hostile reactions to EA. Negative judgements of people are the main cause of defensiveness. EAs (myself not included!) do sometimes make these judgements, and often say things that imply or at least risk suggesting them (whether misleadingly or not).
In addition, veg*nism is associated with strong negative judgements of people. It prompts massive defensiveness and rationalisation on the part of meat eaters for this reason. To the extent that EA is associated with veg*nism, that’ll bleed over.
On the positive side of the ledger, EA is primarily concerned with helping others, and these others are normally distant in some sense, and are groups that most people are neutral-to-positive about. It also has a focus on private action, as opposed to enforced social action through the state. This all reduces the effect to which it threatens people’s interests, and thus the extent to which it’ll promote defensiveness and hostility.
Actually, data suggests most people have positive associations of veg*nism. EA actually seems to have some of the most negativity towards veg*nism that I’ve seen.
That might be because some vegans associated with the EA community have a hardline “meat is murder” recruiting strategy, contrasting with typical vegans in the population at large.
It doesn’t seem to me that the proportion of vegans with that approach is higher in communities around EA than in other communities. They don’t seem particularly vocal either. I could be wrong.
These people operate in the San Francisco area and have substantial overlap w/ the EA community there: http://directactioneverywhere.com/ My vague impression is that they’ve been pretty divisive but I don’t have much firsthand knowledge.
I’d also be interested in your expanding on this—though I’d understand if you don’t want to, or don’t want to here.
I’d love to believe that, but that source doesn’t seem very reliable or persuasive (one small point: aren’t the %s it cites significant overestimates?) Do you have other evidence for it? And do you disagree that suggestions that meat is murder and people are morally obliged to stop eating it provoke massive defensiveness and opposition?
Just to be clear, my comment was disagreeing with this claim:
But to your questions, there’s not very robust evidence in either direction that I know of. And I think there’s an important distinction between defensiveness and negativity. An example to illustrate this is military service. Most people think highly of military people, but would react with great defensiveness if you suggested they had a moral obligation to join the military. If veganism is similar, then we might expect that people would be excited about a high number of military people in EA but would only become defensive if you brought it up as a moral obligation.
More importantly, however, EA brings up a lot of moral obligations. I mean, donating 10% of your income is pretty widespread, as is being willing to reject your current altruistic endeavors if they’re ineffective. I rarely see anyone in EA bring up concerns about these things being offputting, but it comes up almost every time veg*nism is discussed. I think this is an example of motivated reasoning.
BTW to fix the italics you can put a backslash in front of your asterisks: veg\*nism.
Thanks, done!
Good points. Definitely a case for trying to avoid those statements that may imply judgement, and for playing down associations between effective altruism and veg*nism.
Minor changes in the last paragraph of page 5 and the first paragraph of page 7.