Eric, I agree 100% with being open to anyone who wants to make a significant impact, and I would never “exclude” anyone or make claims about being a “true” EA. But the question of how much money one ought to donate requires serious treatment. I don’t disagree that we need to spread a broader and better message than just donating to the best charities, but I strongly disagree that we we would benefit from people being encouraged to give less money or be less productive.
These people are laudable. I’m not going to say that they are doing badly by making this choice with their life. But I am going to claim that these actions are supererogatory.
I’m not sure if you’re approaching this from a philosophical perspective but there is a conceptual difference between what is obligatory and what is supererogatory. You make plenty of points regarding practical matters, but the ethical question of whether or not one ought to do as much as they can to have a positive effect on the world remains untouched. For the record, I do think there are supererogatory actions, just that we generally don’t reach those limits while living in the richest countries in the world with all the modern benefits of medical technology and stable food supplies. Someone who donates maximally to charity is still living a more comfortable life than the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.
My claim is that the divisor should not be the full life of an individual EA, but instead each marketable and sustainable effort that is put in by each individual EA. This is a little convoluted, so I’ll explain.
I’m sorry but I’m still not entirely sure about your thought process. Are you saying that the metric be an output-per-input efficiency type metric? Because according to that logic we all should do exactly one maximally beneficial thing, and then just forget about EA, because that would enable the highest average impact per individual effort.
That’s where we get the next divisor approximation: Marketable Individual Sustainable Effort. Here we finally recognize that the good we do isn’t just based on the good we do directly, but also the good we do indirectly by helping others become EAs as well.
Sure, but that’s not missing from the simple metric of positive impact. You would just have to intuitively factor in the effects of your lifestyle on other people. Does this new framework gives us any new tools to analyze the issue?
The above paragraph should be offensive to no one.
It’s not obvious to me. Most people will probably become effective altruists based on their own beliefs and values. And people don’t need to identify with the entire community in order to accept the movement; as long as there are some people who follow a similar route they will have some people to relate to.
The problem is that you are claiming that, say, if I increase my donations from 10% to 50%, I will actually turn off no less than four people (on average) who would have donated 10% each! Does that seem obvious to you? It doesn’t seem obvious to me, either in this specific example or in other examples with other numbers. You also have to throw in the countervailing effects of people being less encouraged to donate more. If me donating only 10% reduces the likelihood of another 10%er moving up to 50%, then I’ve just done twice as much harm. Don’t forget that since the start of Effective Altruism, the idea of donating large amounts of money has given it plenty of attention and the interest of key individuals.
Besides, no one even has to know how much money someone donates. One can just say that he donates 10%, but actually donate a lot more. Better yet, don’t bring it up percentages at all to people who are new to the movement. Furthermore, for most people’s financial situations 10% donation does not come close to eliminating your abilities to spend some money on hobbies or leisure time or things like that.
I have high confidence that everyone reading it said to themselves: yeah, that’s obvious. But when I make the same claim about sleeping, eating, or playing video games, that’s when I seem to get pushback.
No one disagrees that you shouldn’t sacrifice so much that it would hurt your productivity. But be realistic, how many people will actually find out how many things you do in your free time? And how many of those people are potential effective altruists, and how many of those are potential effective altruists whose decisions are likely to change based on their perception of you? Finally, your donations can go into effect now. These hypothetical marketability issues won’t be realized until months or years in the future, so that’s a further reason to be less concerned about them.
By all means, it makes sense to have a few positive aspects in life that make yourself look interesting. But you rapidly begin to get diminishing marginal returns on that issue.
The right message to propagate, clearly, is that there is room for everyone. But I think that setting a lower-effort norm can have dangerous long term consequences for internal culture. There’s something that makes effective altruism different from evangelical religious groups and small political parties and community volunteer groups, and that is the fact that EAs are consistently willing to go above and beyond in having a footprint. And if we want to spread the message to new people, instead of passively relying on being interesting and cool people, it’s much more effective to actually go out there and actively build the movement.
The problem is that you are claiming that, say, if I increase my donations from 10% to 50%, I will actually turn off no less than four people (on average) who would have donated 10% each! Does that seem obvious to you? It doesn’t seem obvious to me, either in this specific example or in other examples with other numbers.
I would like to make clear that I am not making this claim. Your numbers here are correct; I agree that if you increase your donations from 10% to 50%, it does not seem likely that that would turn off no less than four people who would have donated 10% each.
However, I still think my intended claim stands. It is my belief that the people who do less are not as vocal as the people who do more. I do not think the people who do more should instead do less; rather, I think that the people who do less should become more vocal.
This isn’t so much a problem with percentage of income donations, which is why I (perhaps incorrectly) said that that paragraph should be offensive to no one. But it is a problem when it comes to inefficient behaviors, like people who have hobbies that actually cost money, or people who don’t maximize every moment of their day.
There is an unstated premise here that I should have made explicit. I’m talking only about those individuals who are already doing the maximum that they are going to do. If someone could plausibly be talked into upping their percentage from 10% to 50%, then they probably should. But if they are already donating their maximum, my argument is that they should be more vocal about their contribution level within the community. (Again, I don’t think contribution level vocality is an issue; but I do think that normal sleeping/eating/playing pattern vocality is an issue in the EA community.)
You also have to throw in the countervailing effects of people being less encouraged to donate more. If me donating only 10% reduces the likelihood of another 10%er moving up to 50%, then I’ve just done twice as much harm. Don’t forget that since the start of Effective Altruism, the idea of donating large amounts of money has given it plenty of attention and the interest of key individuals.
This is a very good point. But, again, I’m not claiming that those who perform what I’m calling supererogatory actions should be more quiet; I’m merely claiming that the less efficient of us should be more vocal. We are still going to have people in the community who perform superhuman feats (you know who you are), and they are still going to get attention/press and be “looked up to”. My claim is that, alongside this, we should also have room for the less efficient of us (which we all agree with), and that the less efficient should be a vocal portion of the EA community, to make the barrier to entry for new EAs feel that much lower (which is the part of my claim that we disagree on).
I am not claiming that we need to donate less or sleep more or spend more money on video games. What I’m instead saying is that, for those of us who are going to spend that money on video games regardless, and those who will sleep 9 hours regardless, and those who just aren’t going to donate over 10%, we should not be embarrassed by these things and keep them quiet. If we really aren’t going to be more effective in terms of time, money, attention, energy, or whatever, then we can at least create more utility for the cause by being vocal and thereby making it easier for new recruits to come into the fold.
I think that setting a lower-effort norm can have dangerous long term consequences for internal culture. There’s something that makes effective altruism different from evangelical religious groups and small political parties and community volunteer groups, and that is the fact that EAs are consistently willing to go above and beyond in having a footprint.
This critique is a strong one, and I don’t have a proper reply to it other than that I’m thinking about what you’ve said. If you’re right, then this consideration would overwhelm all of the other arguments I’ve made in this thread. My suspicion is that you are wrong, but I don’t have data to support this beyond my intuition.
And if we want to spread the message to new people, instead of passively relying on being interesting and cool people, it’s much more effective to actually go out there and actively build the movement.
We agree on this point. Again, the unstated premise I had was that these people would not be doing more, so they could at least help by being more vocal. But obviously if they instead actually recruited others, that would be far better.
Eric, I agree 100% with being open to anyone who wants to make a significant impact, and I would never “exclude” anyone or make claims about being a “true” EA. But the question of how much money one ought to donate requires serious treatment. I don’t disagree that we need to spread a broader and better message than just donating to the best charities, but I strongly disagree that we we would benefit from people being encouraged to give less money or be less productive.
I’m not sure if you’re approaching this from a philosophical perspective but there is a conceptual difference between what is obligatory and what is supererogatory. You make plenty of points regarding practical matters, but the ethical question of whether or not one ought to do as much as they can to have a positive effect on the world remains untouched. For the record, I do think there are supererogatory actions, just that we generally don’t reach those limits while living in the richest countries in the world with all the modern benefits of medical technology and stable food supplies. Someone who donates maximally to charity is still living a more comfortable life than the vast majority of humans who have ever lived.
I’m sorry but I’m still not entirely sure about your thought process. Are you saying that the metric be an output-per-input efficiency type metric? Because according to that logic we all should do exactly one maximally beneficial thing, and then just forget about EA, because that would enable the highest average impact per individual effort.
Sure, but that’s not missing from the simple metric of positive impact. You would just have to intuitively factor in the effects of your lifestyle on other people. Does this new framework gives us any new tools to analyze the issue?
It’s not obvious to me. Most people will probably become effective altruists based on their own beliefs and values. And people don’t need to identify with the entire community in order to accept the movement; as long as there are some people who follow a similar route they will have some people to relate to.
The problem is that you are claiming that, say, if I increase my donations from 10% to 50%, I will actually turn off no less than four people (on average) who would have donated 10% each! Does that seem obvious to you? It doesn’t seem obvious to me, either in this specific example or in other examples with other numbers. You also have to throw in the countervailing effects of people being less encouraged to donate more. If me donating only 10% reduces the likelihood of another 10%er moving up to 50%, then I’ve just done twice as much harm. Don’t forget that since the start of Effective Altruism, the idea of donating large amounts of money has given it plenty of attention and the interest of key individuals.
Besides, no one even has to know how much money someone donates. One can just say that he donates 10%, but actually donate a lot more. Better yet, don’t bring it up percentages at all to people who are new to the movement. Furthermore, for most people’s financial situations 10% donation does not come close to eliminating your abilities to spend some money on hobbies or leisure time or things like that.
No one disagrees that you shouldn’t sacrifice so much that it would hurt your productivity. But be realistic, how many people will actually find out how many things you do in your free time? And how many of those people are potential effective altruists, and how many of those are potential effective altruists whose decisions are likely to change based on their perception of you? Finally, your donations can go into effect now. These hypothetical marketability issues won’t be realized until months or years in the future, so that’s a further reason to be less concerned about them.
By all means, it makes sense to have a few positive aspects in life that make yourself look interesting. But you rapidly begin to get diminishing marginal returns on that issue.
The right message to propagate, clearly, is that there is room for everyone. But I think that setting a lower-effort norm can have dangerous long term consequences for internal culture. There’s something that makes effective altruism different from evangelical religious groups and small political parties and community volunteer groups, and that is the fact that EAs are consistently willing to go above and beyond in having a footprint. And if we want to spread the message to new people, instead of passively relying on being interesting and cool people, it’s much more effective to actually go out there and actively build the movement.
I would like to make clear that I am not making this claim. Your numbers here are correct; I agree that if you increase your donations from 10% to 50%, it does not seem likely that that would turn off no less than four people who would have donated 10% each.
However, I still think my intended claim stands. It is my belief that the people who do less are not as vocal as the people who do more. I do not think the people who do more should instead do less; rather, I think that the people who do less should become more vocal.
This isn’t so much a problem with percentage of income donations, which is why I (perhaps incorrectly) said that that paragraph should be offensive to no one. But it is a problem when it comes to inefficient behaviors, like people who have hobbies that actually cost money, or people who don’t maximize every moment of their day.
There is an unstated premise here that I should have made explicit. I’m talking only about those individuals who are already doing the maximum that they are going to do. If someone could plausibly be talked into upping their percentage from 10% to 50%, then they probably should. But if they are already donating their maximum, my argument is that they should be more vocal about their contribution level within the community. (Again, I don’t think contribution level vocality is an issue; but I do think that normal sleeping/eating/playing pattern vocality is an issue in the EA community.)
This is a very good point. But, again, I’m not claiming that those who perform what I’m calling supererogatory actions should be more quiet; I’m merely claiming that the less efficient of us should be more vocal. We are still going to have people in the community who perform superhuman feats (you know who you are), and they are still going to get attention/press and be “looked up to”. My claim is that, alongside this, we should also have room for the less efficient of us (which we all agree with), and that the less efficient should be a vocal portion of the EA community, to make the barrier to entry for new EAs feel that much lower (which is the part of my claim that we disagree on).
I am not claiming that we need to donate less or sleep more or spend more money on video games. What I’m instead saying is that, for those of us who are going to spend that money on video games regardless, and those who will sleep 9 hours regardless, and those who just aren’t going to donate over 10%, we should not be embarrassed by these things and keep them quiet. If we really aren’t going to be more effective in terms of time, money, attention, energy, or whatever, then we can at least create more utility for the cause by being vocal and thereby making it easier for new recruits to come into the fold.
This critique is a strong one, and I don’t have a proper reply to it other than that I’m thinking about what you’ve said. If you’re right, then this consideration would overwhelm all of the other arguments I’ve made in this thread. My suspicion is that you are wrong, but I don’t have data to support this beyond my intuition.
We agree on this point. Again, the unstated premise I had was that these people would not be doing more, so they could at least help by being more vocal. But obviously if they instead actually recruited others, that would be far better.