Thanks for the comment! Iāve definitely had to choose my battles when making my āelevator pitchā to non EA people who may have limited time or interest. Itās an interesting idea to go the next level: not just what and how should we tell people about EA in general, but very literally, what and how should we tell people about EA when given certain real-world time constraints.
Some form of importance, as you mentioned, and ease of explaining, should be factors, I agree. Iād say those are similar but not entirely the same as these two of my considerations above:
We might want ideas thatā¦
...are not likely to be misinterpreted or misused. (SIMILAR TO EASE OF EXPLAINING)
AND
...will actually make an impact if applied. (SIMILAR TO IMPORTANCE)
Iām glad you mentioned āease of explainingā because in teaching, Iām constantly negotiating between what I ideally want students to know, and the likelihood that I will be able to successfully impart it to them.
My goal is to change general public thinking about how to do good. I think neglectedness as an EA idea is specifically for choosing cause areas. Iāve stayed away from proposing specific cause areas (and charities) as EA ideas to spread to the public for a couple reasons:
Individual charities or cause areas may have relatively short shelf-life before we, as the EA Community, re-prioritize them (for various reasons). If we put time and effort into embedding certain EA ideas in the public mind, I think it makes sense for them to be general and long-lasting so that their relevance doesnāt expire.
Even within the EA community (a group of altruistic and brilliant people) there is hardly consensus about which cause areas or charities we should prioritize. If we make our public face about promoting any specific cause or charity, a lot of the public will disagree and push back (see my second consideration: ā...wonāt be contentiousā). On the other hand, if we promote more general ideas that are hard to dispute (like the use of evidence for the purposes of doing good) few could disagree and it could help many people to do good even a little more effectively.
Currently there are three ideas that I think should be prioritized (though my thinking could likely change) and in the future Iād be curious as to your and othersā opinion of how to best present them with limited time.
Thanks for sending the video. I saw him talk about this in the fall! Seems like heās thinking on even the next level. Instead of my current thinking about providing EA tools that the public could have in order to maximize the good they do, heās asking: āWhat values should the public hold that define what it means to do good?ā It seems like his idea could have a massive impact if somehow those values could become widespread.
Thanks for the comment! Iāve definitely had to choose my battles when making my āelevator pitchā to non EA people who may have limited time or interest. Itās an interesting idea to go the next level: not just what and how should we tell people about EA in general, but very literally, what and how should we tell people about EA when given certain real-world time constraints.
Some form of importance, as you mentioned, and ease of explaining, should be factors, I agree. Iād say those are similar but not entirely the same as these two of my considerations above:
AND
Iām glad you mentioned āease of explainingā because in teaching, Iām constantly negotiating between what I ideally want students to know, and the likelihood that I will be able to successfully impart it to them.
My goal is to change general public thinking about how to do good. I think neglectedness as an EA idea is specifically for choosing cause areas. Iāve stayed away from proposing specific cause areas (and charities) as EA ideas to spread to the public for a couple reasons:
Individual charities or cause areas may have relatively short shelf-life before we, as the EA Community, re-prioritize them (for various reasons). If we put time and effort into embedding certain EA ideas in the public mind, I think it makes sense for them to be general and long-lasting so that their relevance doesnāt expire.
Even within the EA community (a group of altruistic and brilliant people) there is hardly consensus about which cause areas or charities we should prioritize. If we make our public face about promoting any specific cause or charity, a lot of the public will disagree and push back (see my second consideration: ā...wonāt be contentiousā). On the other hand, if we promote more general ideas that are hard to dispute (like the use of evidence for the purposes of doing good) few could disagree and it could help many people to do good even a little more effectively.
Currently there are three ideas that I think should be prioritized (though my thinking could likely change) and in the future Iād be curious as to your and othersā opinion of how to best present them with limited time.
Thanks for sending the video. I saw him talk about this in the fall! Seems like heās thinking on even the next level. Instead of my current thinking about providing EA tools that the public could have in order to maximize the good they do, heās asking: āWhat values should the public hold that define what it means to do good?ā It seems like his idea could have a massive impact if somehow those values could become widespread.