Cause-specific events could still be cause-general (e.g. if you had an event on applying general EA principles in your work, but aimed just at people interested in GHD), but in practice may not be (if you do a bunch of work thatâs specifically relevant for that cause area).
Cause-general investment have a wide scope: they can affect any cause.
A GHD event about general EA principles does not seem like it âcan affect any cause.â
Or, I guess there is some trivial butterfly-effect sense in which everything can affect everything else, but it seems like a GHD conference has effects which are pretty narrowly targeted at one cause, even if the topics discussed are general EA principles.
My read: an event about general EA principles, considered as a resource, is, as Schubert puts it, cause-flexible: it could easily be adapted to be specialized to a different cause. The fact that it happens to be deployed, in this example, to help GHD, doesnât change the cause-flexibility of the resource (which is a type of cause-generality).
I guess you could say that it was cause-flexible up until the moment you deployed it and then it stopped being cause-flexible. I think itâs still useful to be able to distinguish cases where it would have been easy to deploy it to a different cause from cases where it would not; and since we have cause-agnostic vs cause-decided to talk about the distinction at the moment of commitment am trying to keep âcause generalâ to refer to the type of resource rather than the way itâs deployed.
(I donât feel I have total clarity on this; Iâm more confident that thereâs a gap between how youâre using terms and Schubertâs article than I am about whatâs ideal.)
Not sure I understand this. Schubertâs definition:
A GHD event about general EA principles does not seem like it âcan affect any cause.â
Or, I guess there is some trivial butterfly-effect sense in which everything can affect everything else, but it seems like a GHD conference has effects which are pretty narrowly targeted at one cause, even if the topics discussed are general EA principles.
My read: an event about general EA principles, considered as a resource, is, as Schubert puts it, cause-flexible: it could easily be adapted to be specialized to a different cause. The fact that it happens to be deployed, in this example, to help GHD, doesnât change the cause-flexibility of the resource (which is a type of cause-generality).
I guess you could say that it was cause-flexible up until the moment you deployed it and then it stopped being cause-flexible. I think itâs still useful to be able to distinguish cases where it would have been easy to deploy it to a different cause from cases where it would not; and since we have cause-agnostic vs cause-decided to talk about the distinction at the moment of commitment am trying to keep âcause generalâ to refer to the type of resource rather than the way itâs deployed.
(I donât feel I have total clarity on this; Iâm more confident that thereâs a gap between how youâre using terms and Schubertâs article than I am about whatâs ideal.)