Maybe I am in a very biased bubble here working in the same office as Effektiv Spenden but I notice I find it pretty unclear who is disagreeing with this / which of these claims are controversial and why.
I think few people disagree with these directly, but I think many people believe or act in ways that are in tension with them. Going through the claims:
Many people in EA have not in fact taken the GWWC pledge. I agree with Sjir that it would be better if more of them did (I would probably be even more forceful and say that you probably should unless you have a good reason not to)
One reason people don’t push people in EA to take the pledge is that they don’t want to make it seem like you have to do it in order to be in EA. So it’s important to clarify that we don’t think that if we do want to push the pledge more.
EA spaces (the forum is a good example) are full of people who are heavily involved in EA beyond just giving. This creates the impression that EA is “for” those people. It’s helpful to clarify that that’s not true.
In the past lots of our messaging around effective giving has been quite tied up with general EA messaging. We don’t have to do that, and we might reach more people if we don’t.
So each of these claims seems like a useful marking post to me.
I’m also unsure about that and eager to find out, which is part of the reason for writing this post. And if it were to turn out hardly anyone disagrees / none of these claims are controversial, I hope we’ll find a way to make the actual role of effective giving in the EA community more aligned with what we think it should be (incl. through interventions like the ones suggested above), because I don’t think we’re currently there!
Strong agree with this. Most EAs would probably agree with these points abstractly, but there is likely a gap in that (I believe) most EAs have not e.g. taken the GGWC pledge.
Thanks for this, Sjir!
Maybe I am in a very biased bubble here working in the same office as Effektiv Spenden but I notice I find it pretty unclear who is disagreeing with this / which of these claims are controversial and why.
I think few people disagree with these directly, but I think many people believe or act in ways that are in tension with them. Going through the claims:
Many people in EA have not in fact taken the GWWC pledge. I agree with Sjir that it would be better if more of them did (I would probably be even more forceful and say that you probably should unless you have a good reason not to)
One reason people don’t push people in EA to take the pledge is that they don’t want to make it seem like you have to do it in order to be in EA. So it’s important to clarify that we don’t think that if we do want to push the pledge more.
EA spaces (the forum is a good example) are full of people who are heavily involved in EA beyond just giving. This creates the impression that EA is “for” those people. It’s helpful to clarify that that’s not true.
In the past lots of our messaging around effective giving has been quite tied up with general EA messaging. We don’t have to do that, and we might reach more people if we don’t.
So each of these claims seems like a useful marking post to me.
Thanks for making this more explicit, this is v helpful!
Thanks Johannes.
I’m also unsure about that and eager to find out, which is part of the reason for writing this post. And if it were to turn out hardly anyone disagrees / none of these claims are controversial, I hope we’ll find a way to make the actual role of effective giving in the EA community more aligned with what we think it should be (incl. through interventions like the ones suggested above), because I don’t think we’re currently there!
Strong agree with this. Most EAs would probably agree with these points abstractly, but there is likely a gap in that (I believe) most EAs have not e.g. taken the GGWC pledge.