Yeah, I think Psychology of effective giving is probably the best name. Stefan, Lucius and others have published a bunch of stuff on this, which would be good to cover in the article.
This is one of many emerging areas of research at the intersection of psychology and effective altruism:
- psychology of effective giving (Caviola et al. 2014; Caviola, Schubert & Nemirow 2020; Burum, Nowak & Hoffman 2020) - psychology of existential risk (Shubert, Caviola & Faber 2019) - psychology of speciesism (Caviola 2019; Caviola, Everett & Faber 2019; Caviola & Capraro 2020) - psychology of utilitarianism (Kahane et al. 2018; Everett & Kahane 2020)
I was thinking of covering all of this research in a general entry on the psychology of effective altruism, but we can also have separate articles for each.
I forgot that there was already an EA Psychology tag, so Iâve now just renamed that, added some content, and copied this comment of Pabloâs on that Discussion page.
(It could still make sense for someone to also create entries on those other topics and/âor on moral psychologyâI just havenât done so yet.)
I also think that, as you suggest, that can indeed neatly cover âpsychology of effective givingâ (i.e., that seems a subset of âpsychology of effective altruismâ), and maybe âpsychology of utilitarianismâ.
But Iâm less sure that that neatly covers the other things you list. I.e., the psychology of speciesism and existential risk are relevant to things other than how effective people will be in their altruism. But we can just decide later whether to also have separate entries for those, and if so I do think they should definitely be listed in the Related entries section from the âmain entryâ on this bundle of topics (and vice versa).
So I think I currently favour:
Havenât an entry called psychology of (in)effective altruism
With psychology of effective altruism as a second-to-top pick
Probably not currently having a separate entry for psychology of (in)effective giving
But if people think thereâs enough distinctive stuff to warrant an entry/âtag for that, Iâm definitely open to it
Maybe having separate entries for the other things you mention
Psychology of (in)effective altruism is adequate for a paper, where authors can use humor, puns, and other informal devices, but inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which should keep a formal tone.
(To elaborate: by calling the field of study e.g. the âpsychology of effective givingâ one is not confining attention only to the psychology of those who give particularly effectively: âeffective givingâ is used to designate a dimension of variation, and the field studies the underlying psychology responsible for causing people to give with varying degrees of effectiveness, ranging from very effectively to very ineffectively. By analogy, the psychology of eating is meant to also study the psychology of people who do not eat, or who eat little. A paper about anorexia may be called âThe psychology of (non-)eatingâ, but thatâs just an informal way of drawing attention to its focus; itâs not meant to describe a field of study called âThe psychology of (non-)eatingâ, and thatâs not an appropriate title for an encyclopedia article on such a topic.)
Yeah, the ultra-pedantic+playful parenthetical is a very academic thing. âPsychology of effective altruismâ seems to cover giving/âx-risk/âspeciesism/âcareer choiceâi.e. it covers everything we want.
Given the fact you both say this and the upvotes on those comments, I think we should probably indeed go with âpsychology of effective givingâ rather than âpsychology of (in)effective givingâ.[1]
I still donât think that actually totally covers psychology of speciesism, since speciesism is not just relevant in relation to altruism. Likewise, I wouldnât say the psychology of racism or of sexism are covered by the area âpsychology of effective altruismâ. But I do think the entry on psychology of effective altruism should discuss speciesism and so on, and that if we later have an entry for psychology of speciesism they should link to each other.
[1] But FWIW:
I donât naturally interpret the â(in)â device as something like humour, a pun, or an informal device
I think âpsychology of effective altruismâ and âpsychology of ineffective altruismâ do call to mind to distinct focuses, even if Iâd expect each thing to either cover (with less emphasis) or âtalk toâ work on the other thing
Somewhat analogously, areas of psychology that focus on what makes for an especially good life (e.g., humanist psychology) are meaningfully distinct from those that focus on âdysfunctionâ (e.g., psychopathology), and I believe new terms were coined primarily to highlight that distinction
But I donât think this matters much, and Iâm totally happy for âpsychology of effective givingâ to be used instead.
(Oh, just popping a thought here before I go to sleep: âmoral psychologyâ is a relevant nearby thing. Possibly itâd be better to have that entry than âpsychology of effective altruismâ? Or to have both?)
Barriers to effective giving or Psychology of (in)effective giving or something like that
Bibliography
Why arenât people donating more effectively? | Stefan Schubert | EA Global: San Francisco 2018
EA Efficacy and Community Norms with Stefan Schubert [see description for why this is relevant]
[Maybe some other Stefan Schubert stuff]
[Probably some stuff by Lucius Caviola, David Reinstein, and others]
Related entries
cognitive bias | cost-effectiveness | donation choice | diminishing returns | effective giving | market efficiency of philanthropy | rationality | scope neglect | speciesism | temporal discounting
---
Relevant posts:
Some Infrastructure Fund /â Meta Fund payout reports
Probably other stuff
Yeah, I think Psychology of effective giving is probably the best name. Stefan, Lucius and others have published a bunch of stuff on this, which would be good to cover in the article.
This is one of many emerging areas of research at the intersection of psychology and effective altruism:
- psychology of effective giving (Caviola et al. 2014; Caviola, Schubert & Nemirow 2020; Burum, Nowak & Hoffman 2020)
- psychology of existential risk (Shubert, Caviola & Faber 2019)
- psychology of speciesism (Caviola 2019; Caviola, Everett & Faber 2019; Caviola & Capraro 2020)
- psychology of utilitarianism (Kahane et al. 2018; Everett & Kahane 2020)
I was thinking of covering all of this research in a general entry on the psychology of effective altruism, but we can also have separate articles for each.
I forgot that there was already an EA Psychology tag, so Iâve now just renamed that, added some content, and copied this comment of Pabloâs on that Discussion page.
(It could still make sense for someone to also create entries on those other topics and/âor on moral psychologyâI just havenât done so yet.)
Great, thanks.
Apparently thereâs a new review article by Caviola, Schubert, and Greene called âThe Psychology of (In)Effective Altruismâ, which pushes in favour of roughly that as the name.
I also think that, as you suggest, that can indeed neatly cover âpsychology of effective givingâ (i.e., that seems a subset of âpsychology of effective altruismâ), and maybe âpsychology of utilitarianismâ.
But Iâm less sure that that neatly covers the other things you list. I.e., the psychology of speciesism and existential risk are relevant to things other than how effective people will be in their altruism. But we can just decide later whether to also have separate entries for those, and if so I do think they should definitely be listed in the Related entries section from the âmain entryâ on this bundle of topics (and vice versa).
So I think I currently favour:
Havenât an entry called psychology of (in)effective altruism
With psychology of effective altruism as a second-to-top pick
Probably not currently having a separate entry for psychology of (in)effective giving
But if people think thereâs enough distinctive stuff to warrant an entry/âtag for that, Iâm definitely open to it
Maybe having separate entries for the other things you mention
Psychology of (in)effective altruism is adequate for a paper, where authors can use humor, puns, and other informal devices, but inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which should keep a formal tone.
(To elaborate: by calling the field of study e.g. the âpsychology of effective givingâ one is not confining attention only to the psychology of those who give particularly effectively: âeffective givingâ is used to designate a dimension of variation, and the field studies the underlying psychology responsible for causing people to give with varying degrees of effectiveness, ranging from very effectively to very ineffectively. By analogy, the psychology of eating is meant to also study the psychology of people who do not eat, or who eat little. A paper about anorexia may be called âThe psychology of (non-)eatingâ, but thatâs just an informal way of drawing attention to its focus; itâs not meant to describe a field of study called âThe psychology of (non-)eatingâ, and thatâs not an appropriate title for an encyclopedia article on such a topic.)
Yeah, the ultra-pedantic+playful parenthetical is a very academic thing. âPsychology of effective altruismâ seems to cover giving/âx-risk/âspeciesism/âcareer choiceâi.e. it covers everything we want.
Given the fact you both say this and the upvotes on those comments, I think we should probably indeed go with âpsychology of effective givingâ rather than âpsychology of (in)effective givingâ.[1]
I still donât think that actually totally covers psychology of speciesism, since speciesism is not just relevant in relation to altruism. Likewise, I wouldnât say the psychology of racism or of sexism are covered by the area âpsychology of effective altruismâ. But I do think the entry on psychology of effective altruism should discuss speciesism and so on, and that if we later have an entry for psychology of speciesism they should link to each other.
[1] But FWIW:
I donât naturally interpret the â(in)â device as something like humour, a pun, or an informal device
I think âpsychology of effective altruismâ and âpsychology of ineffective altruismâ do call to mind to distinct focuses, even if Iâd expect each thing to either cover (with less emphasis) or âtalk toâ work on the other thing
Somewhat analogously, areas of psychology that focus on what makes for an especially good life (e.g., humanist psychology) are meaningfully distinct from those that focus on âdysfunctionâ (e.g., psychopathology), and I believe new terms were coined primarily to highlight that distinction
But I donât think this matters much, and Iâm totally happy for âpsychology of effective givingâ to be used instead.
(Oh, just popping a thought here before I go to sleep: âmoral psychologyâ is a relevant nearby thing. Possibly itâd be better to have that entry than âpsychology of effective altruismâ? Or to have both?)