I didnāt mean to ask whether no case has been made, or imply that theyāve ānever been looked atā, but rather ask whether a compelling case has been made
Iām not quite sure what youāre trying to get at here. In some trivial sense we can see that many people were compelled, hence I didnāt bother to distinguish between ācaseā and ācompelling caseā. I wonder whether by ācompelling caseā you really mean ācase I would find convincingā? In which case, I donāt know whether that case was ever made. Iād be happy to chat more offline and try to compel you :)
thereās a similarly powerful intuition going the other way: that wealthy countries are many times more influential than developing countries
I donāt think this intuition is similarly powerful at all, but more importantly I donāt think it āgoes the other wayā, or perhaps donāt understand what you mean by that phrase. Concretely, if we treat GDP-per-capita as a proxy for influentialness-per-person (not perfect, but seems like right ballpark), and how much we can influence people with $x also scales linearly with GDP-per-capita (i.e. it takes Y monthsā wages to influence people Z amount), that would suggest that interventions aimed at influencing worldwide events have comparable impact anywhere, rather than actively favouring developed countries by anything like the 100x margin.
I suspect that our disagreement might be less about what research exists, and more about what standard to apply for justification.
I agree. I think the appropriate standard is basically the ādo you buy your own bullshitā standard. I.e. if I am donating to Givewell charities over climate change (CC) charities, that is very likely revealing that I truly think those opportunities are better all things considered, not just better according to some narrow criteria. At that point, I could be just plain wrong in expressing that opinion to others, but Iām not being dishonest. By contrast, if I give to CC charities over Givewell charities, I largely donāt think I should evangelise on behalf of Givewell charities, regardless of whether they score better on some specific criteria, unless I am very confident that the person I am talking to cares about those specific criteria (even then Iād want to add āI donāt support this personallyā caveats).
My impression is that EA broadly meets this standard, and I would be disappointed to hear of a case where an individual or group had pushed Givewell charities while having no interest in them for their personal or group-influenced donations.
the empirical claim should be evaluated against the donations made by people who want to do a lot of good, but arenāt familiar with EA. My guess is that climate change and politics are fairly central examples of such donations.
Iām happy to evaluate against these examples regardless, but (a) I doubt these are central, but not with high confidence, would be happy to see data and (b) Iām not sure evaluating against typical-for-that-group donations makes a whole lot of sense when for most people donations are a sideshow in their altruistic endeavours. The counterfactual where I donāt get involved with EA doesnāt look like me donating to climate change instead, it looks like me becoming a teacher rather than a trader and simply earning far less, or becoming a trader and retiring at 30 followed by doing volunteer work. On a quick scan of my relatively-altruistic non-EA friends (who skew economically-privileged and very highly educated, so YMMV) doing good in this kind of direct-but-local way looks like a far more typical approach than making large (say >5% of income) donations to favoured non-EA areas.
Givewell charities are still (I think) the main way that most outsiders perceive EA.
Communicating the fact that many core EA organisations have a firmly longtermist focus is something I am strongly in favour of. 80k has been doing a ton of work here to try and shift perceptions of what EA is about.
That said, in this venue I think itās easy to overestimate the disconnect. 80k/āCEA/āEA forum/āetc. are only one part of the movement, and heavily skew longtermist relative to the whole. Put plainly, in the event that outsiders perceive EA heavily through the lens of Givewell charities because most self-identified EAs are donating and their donations mostly go to Givewell charities, that seems fine, in the sense that perceptions match reality, regardless of what us oddballs are doing. In the event that outsiders perceive this because this used to be the case but is no longer, and thereās a lag, then Iām in favour of doing things to try and reduce the lag, example in previous paragraph.
Iām not quite sure what youāre trying to get at here. In some trivial sense we can see that many people were compelled, hence I didnāt bother to distinguish between ācaseā and ācompelling caseā. I wonder whether by ācompelling caseā you really mean ācase I would find convincingā? In which case, I donāt know whether that case was ever made. Iād be happy to chat more offline and try to compel you :)
I donāt think this intuition is similarly powerful at all, but more importantly I donāt think it āgoes the other wayā, or perhaps donāt understand what you mean by that phrase. Concretely, if we treat GDP-per-capita as a proxy for influentialness-per-person (not perfect, but seems like right ballpark), and how much we can influence people with $x also scales linearly with GDP-per-capita (i.e. it takes Y monthsā wages to influence people Z amount), that would suggest that interventions aimed at influencing worldwide events have comparable impact anywhere, rather than actively favouring developed countries by anything like the 100x margin.
I agree. I think the appropriate standard is basically the ādo you buy your own bullshitā standard. I.e. if I am donating to Givewell charities over climate change (CC) charities, that is very likely revealing that I truly think those opportunities are better all things considered, not just better according to some narrow criteria. At that point, I could be just plain wrong in expressing that opinion to others, but Iām not being dishonest. By contrast, if I give to CC charities over Givewell charities, I largely donāt think I should evangelise on behalf of Givewell charities, regardless of whether they score better on some specific criteria, unless I am very confident that the person I am talking to cares about those specific criteria (even then Iād want to add āI donāt support this personallyā caveats).
My impression is that EA broadly meets this standard, and I would be disappointed to hear of a case where an individual or group had pushed Givewell charities while having no interest in them for their personal or group-influenced donations.
Iām happy to evaluate against these examples regardless, but (a) I doubt these are central, but not with high confidence, would be happy to see data and (b) Iām not sure evaluating against typical-for-that-group donations makes a whole lot of sense when for most people donations are a sideshow in their altruistic endeavours. The counterfactual where I donāt get involved with EA doesnāt look like me donating to climate change instead, it looks like me becoming a teacher rather than a trader and simply earning far less, or becoming a trader and retiring at 30 followed by doing volunteer work. On a quick scan of my relatively-altruistic non-EA friends (who skew economically-privileged and very highly educated, so YMMV) doing good in this kind of direct-but-local way looks like a far more typical approach than making large (say >5% of income) donations to favoured non-EA areas.
Communicating the fact that many core EA organisations have a firmly longtermist focus is something I am strongly in favour of. 80k has been doing a ton of work here to try and shift perceptions of what EA is about.
That said, in this venue I think itās easy to overestimate the disconnect. 80k/āCEA/āEA forum/āetc. are only one part of the movement, and heavily skew longtermist relative to the whole. Put plainly, in the event that outsiders perceive EA heavily through the lens of Givewell charities because most self-identified EAs are donating and their donations mostly go to Givewell charities, that seems fine, in the sense that perceptions match reality, regardless of what us oddballs are doing. In the event that outsiders perceive this because this used to be the case but is no longer, and thereās a lag, then Iām in favour of doing things to try and reduce the lag, example in previous paragraph.