Iâm a big fan of EA philosophy and the people Iâve met through EA. But I think of EA as a philosophy/âmovement/âpersonal practice, not a political party or a religion or any other thing that naturally seems to grant an â-istâ label.
While Iâm sure I sometimes lapse into the âEAsâ shorthand in conversation/âcasual commenting, I try to avoid it in everything I write for CEA, and I push (gently) to keep it out of things I edit/âreview for others.
My preference is to say âI try to practice effective altruismâ or âI try to follow the principles of effective altruismâ (more precise, but clunkier). There are things I associate with EA (trying to increase impact, being cause-neutral, weighting different sorts of beings equally, considering counterfactuals) that I try to do, but donât always succeed at. Thatâs what defines an âEAâ to me â goals and behaviors.
Iâm a big fan of EA philosophy and the people Iâve met through EA. But I think of EA as a philosophy/âmovement/âpersonal practice, not a political party or a religion or any other thing that naturally seems to grant an â-istâ label.
It seems weird to push back against these sentences, since theyâre is about your personal perceptions and what you want to /â feel comfortable identifying with. But these sentences seem a bit odd to me, because I think people do use â-istâ labels for many philosophies, movements, and personal practices, not just political parties or religions or things like that.
Some examples:
Deontologist
Virtue ethicist
Feminist
Pianist
Novelist
And I think â-ianâ labels are basically equivalent (with the distinction between about what letters precede them or something like that, rather than something deeper). In which case, examples like utilitarian and vegetarian are also relevant.
Maybe your perceptions on this arenât really driven by the â-istâ label alone, but by that label plus it being attached to the sort of community of people that seem more likely to form a shared identity, shared ideological blindspots, or similar than e.g. pianists or novelists would be?
Youâve drawn a good distinction here, and I should revise what I said before.
In my previous comment, I lazily copied the explanation I use to tell people they shouldnât capitalize âeffective altruismâ (âitâs not a religionâ). As you say, it doesnât fit here.
The thing I donât like about applying â-istâ labeling to EA is the addition of âeffectiveâ, which (as many others have said) seems to presume impact in a way that seems a bit arrogant and, more importantly, is really hard to prove.
Are you a pianist? Yes, you play the piano.
Are you a virtue ethicist? Yes, you believe that virtue ethics are correct (or whatever).
Are you an altruist? Yes, you give some of your resources to other people for reasons outside of law, contracts, etc.
Are you a great pianist? âŚmaybe? What defines âgreatâ?
Are you an effective altruist? âŚmaybe? What defines âeffectiveâ? You might hold a bunch of ethical beliefs that lots of other people who use that label also hold, but it seems unclear exactly which set of beliefs is sufficient for the label to fit. (And even if we could settle on some canonical set, the word âeffectiveâ still seems presumptive in a way I donât want to apply to individual people.)
If I recall correctly, this was not your position several years ago , when we talked about this more(circa 2015, 2016 or so). Which is not too surprisingâI mean I sure hope I changed a lot in the intervening years!
But assuming my memory of this is correct, do you recall when you made this shift, and the core reasons for it? Interested if thereâs a short/âfast way to retrace your intellectual journey so that other people might make the relevant updates.
Interesting! I donât remember what position I held years ago, but I assume this is about the name of the group we ran? I legitimately donât remember whether it was âEpic Effective Altruismâ or âEpic Effective Altruistsâ.
If it was the latter, I donât think I had a strong view in favor of âaltruistsâ â it just felt like the default name to use and I doubt I thought twice about it. (Iâm pretty sure this is long before I ever read âEA is a question, not an ideologyâ or similar posts.)
The first time I saw someone express reservations about the term âeffective altruistâ, I imagine that would have shifted my position quickly, since I donât think I had a strong prior either way. But if thatâs also not what you remember⌠well, fill me in, because much of that time is a blur for me now :-P
Iâm a big fan of EA philosophy and the people Iâve met through EA. But I think of EA as a philosophy/âmovement/âpersonal practice, not a political party or a religion or any other thing that naturally seems to grant an â-istâ label.
While Iâm sure I sometimes lapse into the âEAsâ shorthand in conversation/âcasual commenting, I try to avoid it in everything I write for CEA, and I push (gently) to keep it out of things I edit/âreview for others.
My preference is to say âI try to practice effective altruismâ or âI try to follow the principles of effective altruismâ (more precise, but clunkier). There are things I associate with EA (trying to increase impact, being cause-neutral, weighting different sorts of beings equally, considering counterfactuals) that I try to do, but donât always succeed at. Thatâs what defines an âEAâ to me â goals and behaviors.
It seems weird to push back against these sentences, since theyâre is about your personal perceptions and what you want to /â feel comfortable identifying with. But these sentences seem a bit odd to me, because I think people do use â-istâ labels for many philosophies, movements, and personal practices, not just political parties or religions or things like that.
Some examples:
Deontologist
Virtue ethicist
Feminist
Pianist
Novelist
And I think â-ianâ labels are basically equivalent (with the distinction between about what letters precede them or something like that, rather than something deeper). In which case, examples like utilitarian and vegetarian are also relevant.
Maybe your perceptions on this arenât really driven by the â-istâ label alone, but by that label plus it being attached to the sort of community of people that seem more likely to form a shared identity, shared ideological blindspots, or similar than e.g. pianists or novelists would be?
Youâve drawn a good distinction here, and I should revise what I said before.
In my previous comment, I lazily copied the explanation I use to tell people they shouldnât capitalize âeffective altruismâ (âitâs not a religionâ). As you say, it doesnât fit here.
The thing I donât like about applying â-istâ labeling to EA is the addition of âeffectiveâ, which (as many others have said) seems to presume impact in a way that seems a bit arrogant and, more importantly, is really hard to prove.
Are you a pianist? Yes, you play the piano.
Are you a virtue ethicist? Yes, you believe that virtue ethics are correct (or whatever).
Are you an altruist? Yes, you give some of your resources to other people for reasons outside of law, contracts, etc.
Are you a great pianist? âŚmaybe? What defines âgreatâ?
Are you an effective altruist? âŚmaybe? What defines âeffectiveâ? You might hold a bunch of ethical beliefs that lots of other people who use that label also hold, but it seems unclear exactly which set of beliefs is sufficient for the label to fit. (And even if we could settle on some canonical set, the word âeffectiveâ still seems presumptive in a way I donât want to apply to individual people.)
If I recall correctly, this was not your position several years ago , when we talked about this more(circa 2015, 2016 or so). Which is not too surprisingâI mean I sure hope I changed a lot in the intervening years!
But assuming my memory of this is correct, do you recall when you made this shift, and the core reasons for it? Interested if thereâs a short/âfast way to retrace your intellectual journey so that other people might make the relevant updates.
Interesting! I donât remember what position I held years ago, but I assume this is about the name of the group we ran? I legitimately donât remember whether it was âEpic Effective Altruismâ or âEpic Effective Altruistsâ.
If it was the latter, I donât think I had a strong view in favor of âaltruistsâ â it just felt like the default name to use and I doubt I thought twice about it. (Iâm pretty sure this is long before I ever read âEA is a question, not an ideologyâ or similar posts.)
The first time I saw someone express reservations about the term âeffective altruistâ, I imagine that would have shifted my position quickly, since I donât think I had a strong prior either way. But if thatâs also not what you remember⌠well, fill me in, because much of that time is a blur for me now :-P
(In case anyone reads Aaronâs comment and is unfamiliar with that post, hereâs the link.)