This is a really interesting topic, so thanks for writing this post! Some thoughts:
You’ve basically identified 2 outcomes of an OFTW group:
The direct impact of the donations
Helping to grow EA groups
I think the first point is not that controversial. I think there’s value in OFTW chapters existing where otherwise they wouldn’t have, even in the absence of EA groups—for example, if someone is convinced by OFTW argumetns but not EA ones. I think OFTW is independent of the EA movement in a way that mitigates this risk—but I’m pretty uncertain about this, and it would be interesting to see data on it.
I think the second outcome is more difficult to do. You have some discussion of ways to mitigate this risk, namely:
OFTW chapter leaders should be knowledgeable about EA and/or direct students to EAs who can offer a stronger introduction to the movement. Given recent discussions regarding the importance of first impressions in EA, OFTW chapters need to be careful about how they portray EA and effective giving. We want to avoid spreading common misconceptions about EA like “EA’s main focus is ending global poverty” or “EA doesn’t care about social justice and systemic change.”
However, even if the founder of the OFTW chapter are knowledgeable EAs, it may be that their successors are not. I don’t see how this process might be controlled in a predictable way. So this means that perhaps a few years after the OFTW chapter is started, the relationship between the EA group & the OFTW one are not as strong.
This could increase the risk of misleading first impressions. For example, the meme that EA is largely focused on ETG is spread more, which appears to have taken a good amount of time to correct, and the meme is still around today. There may be a risk that such memes are brought back which would turn some people off EA.
Questions that might resolve some of the above:
How many OFTW chapters exist alongside EA groups? What is their relationship like—how closely do they collaborate?
If there are many OFTW chapters without EA groups, we might want to consider what the impression that people at these universities have of EA, and how accurate it is.
What are current OFTW organisers’ knowledge of EA and engagement with the EA community?
I think it would be preferable to have OFTW organisers who are familiar with EA arguments & frameworks, because they might be more likely to think about the trade-offs between the two groups.
~12 - this includes some where the EA group explicitly runs the OFTW content, and some where the two just peacefully coexist. Collaboration is broadly positive but not consistent in method or depth.
Hard to say—I would guess that around 1⁄3 know about nothing except effective giving, 1⁄3 know a bit about EA but are mainly focussed on effective giving and 1⁄3 are very knowledgeable about EA/fully committed EAs themselves.
To pick up two of your risks above:
OFTW chapters are certainly vulnerable to changes in leadership, but this point would seem to apply just as strongly to EA groups on campuses, I think? So I’m not sure that we should expect leadership turnover to have any more or less of a negative effect on OFTW-EA relations that it does on EA-student relations.
In fairness, we don’t teach people those memes, or ever reference them in any of our materials or training (at least not in any of the materials or training that I have reviewed/contributed to). OFTW never mentions ETG and in general we don’t really make claims about what EA cares about or focusses on. You helped us with this page, I recall, which is probably the best summary of how we talk about EA—and it reads to me as very neutral in its phrasing: https://chapters.1fortheworld.org/info/effective-altruism-thinking/
Thanks for the information Jack! To clarify my points a little:
OFTW chapters are certainly vulnerable to changes in leadership, but this point would seem to apply just as strongly to EA groups on campuses, I think? So I’m not sure that we should expect leadership turnover to have any more or less of a negative effect on OFTW-EA relations that it does on EA-student relations.
Agreed that EA student groups (and most student groups) are vulnerable to this. I think my prior here is that EA groups would be more likely to to collaborate/work with the OFTW group because there are more obvious reasons to (the benefits Sabrina mentioned in the most)
However it’s very possible (and maybe even fairly likely) that and smaller EA groups perhaps shrinks or stops existing due to leadership handover reasons, while the OFTW group doesn’t. I don’t think this would be a very bad outcome, as I mentioned above I think
In fairness, we don’t teach people those memes, or ever reference them in any of our materials or training (at least not in any of the materials or training that I have reviewed/contributed to). OFTW never mentions ETG and in general we don’t really make claims about what EA cares about or focusses on.
I think I was unclear earlier, and I should have added more nuance. I don’t think this is a direct risk, or that OFTW materials imply this, but rather that these are the associations people will make to EA if that’s the only perspective they see or know that most about. I think this is probably more true if OFTW chapters become very prevalent across US universities, much more so than EA chapters.
This is a really interesting topic, so thanks for writing this post! Some thoughts:
You’ve basically identified 2 outcomes of an OFTW group:
The direct impact of the donations
Helping to grow EA groups
I think the first point is not that controversial. I think there’s value in OFTW chapters existing where otherwise they wouldn’t have, even in the absence of EA groups—for example, if someone is convinced by OFTW argumetns but not EA ones. I think OFTW is independent of the EA movement in a way that mitigates this risk—but I’m pretty uncertain about this, and it would be interesting to see data on it.
I think the second outcome is more difficult to do. You have some discussion of ways to mitigate this risk, namely:
However, even if the founder of the OFTW chapter are knowledgeable EAs, it may be that their successors are not. I don’t see how this process might be controlled in a predictable way. So this means that perhaps a few years after the OFTW chapter is started, the relationship between the EA group & the OFTW one are not as strong.
This could increase the risk of misleading first impressions. For example, the meme that EA is largely focused on ETG is spread more, which appears to have taken a good amount of time to correct, and the meme is still around today. There may be a risk that such memes are brought back which would turn some people off EA.
Questions that might resolve some of the above:
How many OFTW chapters exist alongside EA groups? What is their relationship like—how closely do they collaborate?
If there are many OFTW chapters without EA groups, we might want to consider what the impression that people at these universities have of EA, and how accurate it is.
What are current OFTW organisers’ knowledge of EA and engagement with the EA community?
I think it would be preferable to have OFTW organisers who are familiar with EA arguments & frameworks, because they might be more likely to think about the trade-offs between the two groups.
Hey Vaidehi—I hope you’re well :-)
Just on the factual questions:
~12 - this includes some where the EA group explicitly runs the OFTW content, and some where the two just peacefully coexist. Collaboration is broadly positive but not consistent in method or depth.
Hard to say—I would guess that around 1⁄3 know about nothing except effective giving, 1⁄3 know a bit about EA but are mainly focussed on effective giving and 1⁄3 are very knowledgeable about EA/fully committed EAs themselves.
To pick up two of your risks above:
OFTW chapters are certainly vulnerable to changes in leadership, but this point would seem to apply just as strongly to EA groups on campuses, I think? So I’m not sure that we should expect leadership turnover to have any more or less of a negative effect on OFTW-EA relations that it does on EA-student relations.
In fairness, we don’t teach people those memes, or ever reference them in any of our materials or training (at least not in any of the materials or training that I have reviewed/contributed to). OFTW never mentions ETG and in general we don’t really make claims about what EA cares about or focusses on. You helped us with this page, I recall, which is probably the best summary of how we talk about EA—and it reads to me as very neutral in its phrasing: https://chapters.1fortheworld.org/info/effective-altruism-thinking/
Thanks for the information Jack! To clarify my points a little:
Agreed that EA student groups (and most student groups) are vulnerable to this. I think my prior here is that EA groups would be more likely to to collaborate/work with the OFTW group because there are more obvious reasons to (the benefits Sabrina mentioned in the most)
However it’s very possible (and maybe even fairly likely) that and smaller EA groups perhaps shrinks or stops existing due to leadership handover reasons, while the OFTW group doesn’t. I don’t think this would be a very bad outcome, as I mentioned above I think
I think I was unclear earlier, and I should have added more nuance. I don’t think this is a direct risk, or that OFTW materials imply this, but rather that these are the associations people will make to EA if that’s the only perspective they see or know that most about. I think this is probably more true if OFTW chapters become very prevalent across US universities, much more so than EA chapters.