I’m the current Content Specialist for CEA (the same position held by Max Dalton when he put together the second version of the EA Handbook).
We’re aware that the Handbook isn’t an ideal resource and have been thinking for a while about how we might want to update it. In the process, we’ve consulted a few stakeholders with expertise in different cause areas. So far, we haven’t officially released any edits, but we might do so in the future; we’re still uncertain about timelines and how we want to prioritize this project.
Thanks for the feedback. That sound reasonable. I wrote the OP because this was a resolvable issue that lots of people disputed over EA that appeared to be left unfinished. There are other introductory guidebooks for effective altruism for different causes, etc. So that there isn’t a general guidebook right now that satisfies different relevant parties in EA doesn’t seem like a huge problem. Michael Chen pointed out multiple major problems with one article in the current EA Handbook 2.0. They’re significant mistakes that the article needs changed for it to hold up. I figure for the EA Handbook to deliver its message with integrity, it has to do that for all the articles in the EA Handbook. Since most of the articles were initially written as blog posts, I expect there are other holes in each which with hindsight we could point out. It’s just that the articles in the EA Handbook 2.0 may not have been as professionally written as published books or scholarly articles by effective altruists, which is a quality we should ostensibly aspire to if an introductory book to EA is about EA putting its best foot forward to people new to EA.
Siebe Rozendal suggested an updated version of Doing Good Better. I thought this would be too much work, but it seems like it might be less work to update DGB than it would be to update the EA Handbook, since that poses multiple difficulties. I thought that would require Will doing most to all of the work to update DGB himself, but The Life You Can Save (the organization) has worked with Singer to update the book of the same name. Jon Behar, who works for The Life You Can Save, explains it here. It’s a new edition 8 years later, so there must have been a lot to change. So, the CEA could do something similar where Will works with them to update DGB. CEA could consult with TLYCS (the organization) or work with them in some capacity to replicate the process they’ve used with Singer to update TLYCS (the book).
I honestly think it might be more tractable and more effective to update DGB than the EA Handbook 2.0. If that’s the case, given that DGB is written more as an intro to EA as well, and it’s more popular, I imagine some EAs would be willing to donate time and/or money to see an updated version of DGB happen.
Is that something you think Will and/or the CEA wold consider?
Updating DGB is probably doable and possibly worthwhile even after adjusting for opportunity costs. But I don’t see that as a sustainable long-term way of offering high quality and up to date introductory content. It just buys you some time, and then you’re back where you started. There’s too much work involved in a re-write for that to be feasible as an ongoing way to keep info up to date.
Over the long-term, I think introductory content needs to be packaged in a structure that’s more modular and flexible, e.g. something like the EA Handbook (though I share many of the concerns that were raised about the specific content chosen for the current iteration).
I’m the current Content Specialist for CEA (the same position held by Max Dalton when he put together the second version of the EA Handbook).
We’re aware that the Handbook isn’t an ideal resource and have been thinking for a while about how we might want to update it. In the process, we’ve consulted a few stakeholders with expertise in different cause areas. So far, we haven’t officially released any edits, but we might do so in the future; we’re still uncertain about timelines and how we want to prioritize this project.
Thanks for the feedback. That sound reasonable. I wrote the OP because this was a resolvable issue that lots of people disputed over EA that appeared to be left unfinished. There are other introductory guidebooks for effective altruism for different causes, etc. So that there isn’t a general guidebook right now that satisfies different relevant parties in EA doesn’t seem like a huge problem. Michael Chen pointed out multiple major problems with one article in the current EA Handbook 2.0. They’re significant mistakes that the article needs changed for it to hold up. I figure for the EA Handbook to deliver its message with integrity, it has to do that for all the articles in the EA Handbook. Since most of the articles were initially written as blog posts, I expect there are other holes in each which with hindsight we could point out. It’s just that the articles in the EA Handbook 2.0 may not have been as professionally written as published books or scholarly articles by effective altruists, which is a quality we should ostensibly aspire to if an introductory book to EA is about EA putting its best foot forward to people new to EA.
Siebe Rozendal suggested an updated version of Doing Good Better. I thought this would be too much work, but it seems like it might be less work to update DGB than it would be to update the EA Handbook, since that poses multiple difficulties. I thought that would require Will doing most to all of the work to update DGB himself, but The Life You Can Save (the organization) has worked with Singer to update the book of the same name. Jon Behar, who works for The Life You Can Save, explains it here. It’s a new edition 8 years later, so there must have been a lot to change. So, the CEA could do something similar where Will works with them to update DGB. CEA could consult with TLYCS (the organization) or work with them in some capacity to replicate the process they’ve used with Singer to update TLYCS (the book).
I honestly think it might be more tractable and more effective to update DGB than the EA Handbook 2.0. If that’s the case, given that DGB is written more as an intro to EA as well, and it’s more popular, I imagine some EAs would be willing to donate time and/or money to see an updated version of DGB happen.
Is that something you think Will and/or the CEA wold consider?
Updating DGB is probably doable and possibly worthwhile even after adjusting for opportunity costs. But I don’t see that as a sustainable long-term way of offering high quality and up to date introductory content. It just buys you some time, and then you’re back where you started. There’s too much work involved in a re-write for that to be feasible as an ongoing way to keep info up to date.
Over the long-term, I think introductory content needs to be packaged in a structure that’s more modular and flexible, e.g. something like the EA Handbook (though I share many of the concerns that were raised about the specific content chosen for the current iteration).