Thanks for the important post! Iâm very interested in hearing from others (and particularly Giving What We Can leadership) as to whether their members would be considered EAs. In discussion a few years back, I was under the impression that the consensus was they were the gold standard for EAs. I would put them at a three or four on your scale minimum. But it could be true that a significant fraction do not self identify as EAs. So then it is a question of whether action or identification is more important-I would favor action.
So then it is a question of whether action or identification is more important-I would favor action.
This is the kind of question I had in mind when I said: âOf course, being part of the âEA communityâ in this sense is not a criterion for being effective or acting in an EA manner- for example, one could donate to effective charity, without being involved in the EA community at all...â
It seems fairly uncontroversial to me that someone who does a highly impactful, morally motivated thing, but hasnât even heard of the EA community, doesnât count as part of the EA community (in the sense discussed here).
I think this holds true even if an activity represents the highest standard that all EAs should aspire to. The fact that something is the highest standard that EAs should aspire to doesnât mean that many people might not undertake the activity for reasons unrelated to EA, and I think those people would fall outside the âEA communityâ in the relevant sense, even if they are doing more than many EAs.
It seems fairly uncontroversial to me that someone who does a highly impactful, morally motivated thing, but hasnât even heard of the EA community, doesnât count as part of the EA community (in the sense discussed here).
I agree, but if they are a GWWC member, then they would have heard of EA, and more importantly, likely have been influenced by EA. What Iâm interested in is how many people have been influenced by EA to do EA-like things â I guess this is David Nashâs âEA network?â Do we agree this >10,000 people?
I think âbeen influenced by EA to do EA-like thingsâ covers a very wide array of people.
In the most expansive sense, this seems like it would include people who read a website associated with EA (this could be Giving What We Can, GiveWell, The Life You Can Save or ACE or others...) decide âThese sound like good charitiesâ and donate to them. I think people in this category may or may not have heard of EA (all of these mention effective altruism somewhere on the website) and they may even have read some specific formulation that expresses EA ideas (e.g. âWe should donate to the most effective charityâ) and decided to donate to these specific charities as a result. But they may not really know or understand what EA means (lots of people would platitudinously endorse âdonating to to the best charitiesâ) or endorse it, let alone identify with or be involved with EA in any other way.
I agree that there are many, many more people who are in this category. As we note in footnote 7, there are literally millions of people whoâve read the GiveWell website alone, many of whom (at least 24,000) will have been moved to donate. Donating to a charity influenced by EA principles was the most commonly reported activity in the EA survey by a long way, with >80% of respondents reporting having done so, and >60% even among the second lowest level of engagement.
I think we agree that while getting people to donate to effective charities is important (perhaps even more impactful than getting people to âengage with the effective altruism communityâ in a lot of cases) these people, donât count as part of the EA community in the sense discussed here. But I think they also wouldnât count as part of the âwider network of people interested in effective altruismâ that David Nash refers to (i.e. because many of them arenât interested in effective altruism).
I think a good practical test would be: if you went to some of these people who were moved to donate to a GiveWell/âACE etc. charity and said âHave you heard that many adherents of effective altruism, believe that we should x?â, if their response is some variation on âWhatâs that?â or âWhy should I care?â then theyâre not part of the community or network of people interested in EA. I think this is a practically relevant grouping because this tells you who could âbe influenced by EA to do EA thingsâ, where we understand âinfluenced by EAâ to refer to EA reasoning and arguments and âEA thingsâ to refer to EA things in general, as opposed to people who might be persuaded by an EA website to do some specific thing which EAs currently endorse but who would not consider anything else or consider maximising effectiveness more generally.
Thanks for the important post! Iâm very interested in hearing from others (and particularly Giving What We Can leadership) as to whether their members would be considered EAs. In discussion a few years back, I was under the impression that the consensus was they were the gold standard for EAs. I would put them at a three or four on your scale minimum. But it could be true that a significant fraction do not self identify as EAs. So then it is a question of whether action or identification is more important-I would favor action.
Thanks for the reply!
This is the kind of question I had in mind when I said: âOf course, being part of the âEA communityâ in this sense is not a criterion for being effective or acting in an EA manner- for example, one could donate to effective charity, without being involved in the EA community at all...â
It seems fairly uncontroversial to me that someone who does a highly impactful, morally motivated thing, but hasnât even heard of the EA community, doesnât count as part of the EA community (in the sense discussed here).
I think this holds true even if an activity represents the highest standard that all EAs should aspire to. The fact that something is the highest standard that EAs should aspire to doesnât mean that many people might not undertake the activity for reasons unrelated to EA, and I think those people would fall outside the âEA communityâ in the relevant sense, even if they are doing more than many EAs.
I agree, but if they are a GWWC member, then they would have heard of EA, and more importantly, likely have been influenced by EA. What Iâm interested in is how many people have been influenced by EA to do EA-like things â I guess this is David Nashâs âEA network?â Do we agree this >10,000 people?
I think âbeen influenced by EA to do EA-like thingsâ covers a very wide array of people.
In the most expansive sense, this seems like it would include people who read a website associated with EA (this could be Giving What We Can, GiveWell, The Life You Can Save or ACE or others...) decide âThese sound like good charitiesâ and donate to them. I think people in this category may or may not have heard of EA (all of these mention effective altruism somewhere on the website) and they may even have read some specific formulation that expresses EA ideas (e.g. âWe should donate to the most effective charityâ) and decided to donate to these specific charities as a result. But they may not really know or understand what EA means (lots of people would platitudinously endorse âdonating to to the best charitiesâ) or endorse it, let alone identify with or be involved with EA in any other way.
I agree that there are many, many more people who are in this category. As we note in footnote 7, there are literally millions of people whoâve read the GiveWell website alone, many of whom (at least 24,000) will have been moved to donate. Donating to a charity influenced by EA principles was the most commonly reported activity in the EA survey by a long way, with >80% of respondents reporting having done so, and >60% even among the second lowest level of engagement.
I think we agree that while getting people to donate to effective charities is important (perhaps even more impactful than getting people to âengage with the effective altruism communityâ in a lot of cases) these people, donât count as part of the EA community in the sense discussed here. But I think they also wouldnât count as part of the âwider network of people interested in effective altruismâ that David Nash refers to (i.e. because many of them arenât interested in effective altruism).
I think a good practical test would be: if you went to some of these people who were moved to donate to a GiveWell/âACE etc. charity and said âHave you heard that many adherents of effective altruism, believe that we should x?â, if their response is some variation on âWhatâs that?â or âWhy should I care?â then theyâre not part of the community or network of people interested in EA. I think this is a practically relevant grouping because this tells you who could âbe influenced by EA to do EA thingsâ, where we understand âinfluenced by EAâ to refer to EA reasoning and arguments and âEA thingsâ to refer to EA things in general, as opposed to people who might be persuaded by an EA website to do some specific thing which EAs currently endorse but who would not consider anything else or consider maximising effectiveness more generally.