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?)
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?)