Interesting post and curriculum. I look forward to hearing about the outcomes of the first run as you evaluate them and get results. My own estimates for the likeliness of this achieving 85% better outcomes than the current method are significantly lower, but I think thereâs a chance this will be an improvement.
That being said, some points of disagreement.
I think the framing of âcreatingâ rather than âfindingâ motivated altruistic individuals does not match my own expectation of dealing with university students. When I was an undergraduate myself, I definitely conceived of myself as altruistic, and was actively looking for a cause/âgroup to become active in, both for the social and ethical aspects of activism. Now that I teach first-year students, I think there is a large group of similar motivated altruistic individuals that seek a group to engage with, and I think there is a lot of value in identifying them and pointing them towards EA as a way to act on their altruistic motivation. Many students I meet then stay in the first group/âbroad direction they focused their altruism on, making it even more valuable to present them with EA as an option early-on.
I am worried that this group in particular would be somewhat turned off by the flair of the syllabus you present. Young people that are already altruistically motivated may not look to âUnderstand Themselvesâ, âFind Meaningâ or âTry to live a happy lifeâ. Rather, they may be focused on their altruistic motivation, being angry and upset not at their own life not going well, but the injustice they have become aware of as they grew up (think: Climate Change, Poverty, Racism, Discrimination etc). A syllabus that focuses on one-self, rather than others, may not be a good fit for already altruistic young adults. I myself would likely not have enrolled in this program at an early age, having been a pretty arrogant young man that thought he âfigured outâ the problems and solutions facing the world, as I was mainly scouting for groups that helped me address problems I found most pressing.
One reason for skepticism about your predictions is that my prior for âintervention induces altruistic motivationâ is relatively low after reading about a series of philosophers experimenting with using prompts and/âor courses to induce altruistic behaviour, which turned out to be pretty tough! That being said, if this program were to achieve this goal, that would be very impressive and meaningful, so I applaud the effort going into executing and evaluating the program.
Iâm confused as to whether the character of the project is (1) An epistemic project to make economics research more accessible and transparent or (2) A political project to promote specific areas of economic research that we believe are not accurately represented in current consensus, possibly in the hope of accelerating economic system change.
This announcement is giving me (1) vibes, whereas the newsletter is giving me (2) vibes.
Personally, I share Harrisonâs concerns. I think if the project is (2), these concerns are much more pressing than if the project is (1), as I expect a washout effect as more topics get added to correct for what may be biases of the founders. But based on the website, I am relatively confident that the project is (2) - the website specifies wanting to accelerate a âparadigm shiftâ, and prominently displays a quote about the problematic nature of western capitalism.
Two give just two examples illustrating my concern with the newsletter.
The graphs that stipulate the badness of the âneoliberal turnâ omit the massive economic growth we saw in previous decades, which eradicated a significant fraction of extreme global poverty. It does so by focusing its graphs on the US. But many people believe the main benefit of the âneoliberal turnâ was not to people in the US, but to the global poor! A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight the possibility that the neoliberal turn also is seen as having benefited a large number of people outside of the US.
UBI is posited as an alternative concept to the âneoliberal systemâ. This juxtaposition strikes me as oddâin the American context, neoliberals such as Milton Friedman (plausibly an architect of the âneoliberal turnâ) publicly advocated for UBI. A neutral approach to the project would at least highlight that while some neoliberals have advocated for a UBI, the project hasnât made it off the ground.
I donât want to be overly criticalâI am glad this project exists, and am happy to see more accessible and transparent economic data. But I want to highlight that there may be a significantly higher value if the project takes a neutral approach to economic schools and systems instead of following a line of thought or narrative that the founders (maybe correctly) take to be the right one.
Edited to reflect a closer look at the website.