Error

I don’t really use the word myself (at least, I don’t remember using it), but I sometimes do say things like “intense utilitarian” or “intense worker.”

I’d vote against “Drank the kool-aid EAs.” It’s a super dark metaphor; of an altruistic sect that turned into a cult and committed mass suicide. I get that it’s joking, but it feels like a bit much for me.

https://​​en.wikipedia.org/​​wiki/​​Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

The phrase originates from events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died. The movement’s leader, Jim Jones, called a mass meeting at the Jonestown pavilion after the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and others in nearby Port Kaituma. Jones proposed “revolutionary suicide” by way of ingesting a powdered drink mix lethally laced with cyanide and other drugs which had been prepared by his aides.

What about “very engaged EAs” or “highly engaged EAs”? I think that’s the phrase we have been using for the EA Survey, though this mainly is meant to track your “(3) Are deeply embedded in the current EA community, e.g. buying into the community’s specific priorities/​frameworks, spending lots of time with other EAs, etc.”. I agree this is importantly separate from (1), and both of which is importantly separate from (2) (and same for (4)), and we need other terminology for that.

I have often noticed people conflating these four qualities (impact, ideological commitment, community involvement, and hard work) and I appreciate you listing them explicitly.

My problem isn’t with the term “hardcore EA” itself. I just think there are a lot of people in the community that feel like the most good a person can do is get a job at an EA organisation, make a bunch of EA friends, and work as much as they can. I think even people who wouldn’t endorse this view on reflection might feel like it subconsciously. I disagree with this pretty strongly and think almost all of the most impactful opportunities for doing good are outside of the EA community.

So I don’t want to ban the term. In my perfect world, instead we’d have a deeper cultural change where people don’t conflate impact with EA involvement because that’s not what they actually believe.

“Super bought-in EAs” Drank the kool-aid EAs.”

I appreciate you raising these concerns, but I doubt this will ever catch on. Unfortunately, these terms are too long and awkward sounding for casual contexts and too informal for formal contexts.

I agree with Peter Wildeford that “highly engaged EAs” is better for formal contexts. It does have a slightly different meaning as “hard-core” suggests more ideological conformity than “highly engaged”, however I would suggest that in most contexts the latter is what we want to focus on. For a start, it’s easier to ascertain, but even more importantly we want people who think for themselves.

Huh, I don’t feel very sold on this point.

Regarding your (1), the idea that the term is unwelcoming and hierarchical, it doesn’t really seem that way to me (and certainly doesn’t seem that way to me). I hear people talk about hardcore gamers, Christians, sports fans, Republicans, rock and roll enthusiasts, and tons of other things, including both the people in these groups and outsiders looking in on them, all without sounding like they think the hardcoreness is necessarily good, admirable, or high-status. So the term doesn’t really feel connotated the way you suggest, and thus doesn’t really seem unwelcoming or hierarchical to me. (And this is related to the below point; you seem to think the term is more positive than I think it is so think it does more to make all the different aspects of what people mean by the term sound better than I think it does).

I think people feel excluded by it being highlighted to them that other people are more hardcore than them (or, if you prefer, any of “Are actually having a significant positive impact on the world” “Are deeply committed to overarching EA principles, e.g. impartiality, cost effectiveness, cause prioritization, etc.” “Are deeply embedded in the current EA community, e.g. buying into the community’s specific priorities/​frameworks, spending lots of time with other EAs, etc.” “Work themselves extremely hard to try to maximize impact”) if they don’t believe themselves to be the same way and think others see that thing as good. And you know, it’s the case that some people aren’t hardcore EAs (or aren’t far in the directions you suggest make up the term), and other people in the community maybe think that’s worse than if they were more hardcore, but I think getting rid of the term just (somewhat) obscures an important facet of reality (that people vary on these dimensions, that some people think it’s good to move farther in one direction on the relevant dimensions), and will only make people feel better inasmuch as it obscures reality from them.

And on the second point, about distorting thinking… it’s always the case that using categories obscures some detail about within-category differences. I guess the relevant thing is whether they are useful/​carves nature at its joints. I happen to think “hardcore EA” does (e.g. I think your sub-points 1-4 are pretty correlated), but that’s debatable. But just saying that there are different dimensions at play (including positive and negative ones) doesn’t mean the category isn’t useful.

Finally, sorry, but I kind of don’t believe you actually don’t think the term “hardcore EA” or the category/​cluster it refers to is useful, otherwise it seems weird to suggest alternate terms (“Super bought-in EAs.” or “Drank the kool-aid EAs.”) instead of lobbying for abolishing the category entirely.

I don’t think I ever heard anyone use the phrase “hard-core EAs” or if I did it just passed by without note, but now that I bother to think about it I actually think it’s really apt!

The etymology of hardcore has been a bit lost over the years. Here’s what etymonline says:

also hard-core; 1936 (n.); 1951 (adj.); from hard (adj.) + core (n.). Original use seems to be among economists and sociologists, in reference to unemployables. Extension to pornography is attested by 1966. Also the name of a surfacing material.

Merriam-Webster seem to think it’s a bit older, dating back at least to 1841:

So the earliest sense in which hard core was used was in reference to a sort of foundation on which something substantial was built. In the early 20th century the word broadened its sense to refer to serving as the foundation, or central element, of things aside of man-made structures, such as groups or organizations.

And in its perhaps better known application to pornography, the idea of a hard core that was irredeemable by virtue of how committed it was to immorality (or at least the morality of the time).

So actually I really like the idea of hardcore EAs. They’re the bedrock, the foundation, the EAs who are still going to be there if EA becomes uncool or gets canceled or whatever. It makes me think of people like Peter Singer who would just keep on being an EA even if no one had come up with the label or built a movement. It has the metaphor of being so EA that even if someone brought in a jackhammer you wouldn’t crack.

I don’t know if I am or want to be a hardcore EA, but I’m sure as hell glad they exist!

I’ve heard and used “aligned EA” to refer to someone in category 2 (that is, someone deeply committed to overarching EA principles).

What about ‘card-carrying EAs’? Doesn’t have the same dark connotations as “drank the kool-aid” and does somewhat exemplify the difference you’re hinting at.

Maybe GWWC can start printing cards 😅

https://​​writingexplained.org/​​idiom-dictionary/​​a-card-carrying-member

I like “(very or most) dedicated EA”. Works well for (2) and maybe (4).