Tom_Davidson

• Tom_DavidsonOct 13, 2015, 2:14 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: xccf’s comment on: EA’s Image Problem

  I don’t think the existence of another pledge does much to negate the harm done by the GWWC pledge being classist.

  I agree there’s value in simplicity. But we already have an exception to the rule: students only pay 1%. There’s two points here. Firstly, it doesn’t seem to harm our placard-credentials. We still advertise as “give 10%”, but on further investigation there’s a sensible exception. I think something similar could accommodate low-earners. Secondly, even if you want to keep it at one exception, students are in a much better position to give than many adults. So we should change the exception to a financial one.

  Do you agree that, all things equal, the suggestions I make about how to relate to each other and other EAs are good?

• Tom_DavidsonOct 12, 2015, 11:24 PM

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: xccf’s comment on: EA’s Image Problem

  Thanks a lot, this cleared up a lot of things.

  I think we’re talking past each other a little bit. I’m all for EtG and didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I think we should absolutely keep evaluating career impacts; Matt Wage made the right choice. When I said we should stop glorifying high earners I was referring to the way that they’re hero-worshipped, not our recommending EtG as a career path.

  Most of my suggested changes are about the way we relate to other EAs and to outsiders, though I had a couple of more concrete suggestions about the pledge and the careers advice. I do take your point that glorifying high earners might be consequentially beneficial though: there is a bit of a trade-off here.

  As long as we evaluate careers based on impact, we’re going to have the problem that highly capable people are able to produce a greater impact… Insofar as your post presents a solution, it seems like it trades off almost directly against encouraging people to pursue high-impact careers.

  I hope my suggestions are compatible with encouraging people to pursue high-impact careers, but would reduce the image problem currently currently associated with it. One hope is that by distinguishing between doing good and being good we can encourage everyone to do good by high earning (or whatever) without alienating those who can’t by implying they are less virtuous, or less good people. We could also try and make the movement more inclusive to those who are less rich in other ways: e.g. campaigning for EA causes is more accessible to all.

  I guess maybe making workers at highly effective nonprofits more the stars of the movement could help some?

  This seem like a good idea.

• Tom_DavidsonOct 12, 2015, 12:53 PM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: xccf’s comment on: EA’s Image Problem

  Thanks for the reply! I would like to pick you up on a few points though...

  “On the one hand, you say you “want EA to change the attitudes of society as a whole”. But you seem willing to backpedal on the goal of changing societal attitudes as soon as you encounter any resistance… If EA is watered down to the point where everyone can agree with it, it won’t mean anything anymore.”

  I think all the changes I suggested can be made without the movement losing the things that currently makes it distinctive and challenging in a good way. Which of my suggested changes do you think are in danger of watering EA down too much? Do you take issue with the other changes I’ve suggested?

  “Yes, society as a whole believes that “it’s the thought that counts” and that you should “do something you’re passionate about”. These are the sort of attitudes we’re trying to change.”

  I completely agree we should try to change people’s attitudes about both these things. I argued that we should say “An action that makes a difference is much better than one that doesn’t, regardless of intention” rather than “An agent that makes a difference is much better than one who doesn’t” because the latter turns people against the movement and the former says everything we need to say. Again, I’m interested to know which of my suggested changes you think would stop the movement challenging society in ways that it should be?

  “I think that EA should play to its strengths and not try to be everything to everyone. We’re passionate about doing the most good, not passionate about problems that affect ourselves and our friends. We focus on evidence and reason, which sometimes comes across as cold-hearted (arguably due to cultural conditioning).”

  Again, I completely agree . The things you mention are essential parts of the movement. In my post was trying to suggest ways in which we can minimize the negative image that is easily associated with these things.

  “But the implicit premise of your post is that EA should seek to improve its image in order to increase its influence and membership, almost necessarily at the expense of other movements… I’m skeptical of your implicit premise.”

  You’re right, although it’s not implicit—I say explicitly that I want EA to change the attitudes of society as a whole. This is because I think EA is a great movement and, therefore, that if it has more appeal and influence it will be able to accomplish more. FWIW I don’t think it’s the last social movement we’ll ever need.

  “It’s a vision of getting a bunch of smart, wealthy, influential critical thinkers in the same room together, trying to figure out what the world’s most important & neglected problems are and how they can most effectively be solved.”

  I think comments like these make the movement seem inaccessible to outsiders who aren’t rich or privileged. It seems like we disagree over whether that’s a problem or not though.

  Overall it seems like you think that paying attention to our image in the ways I suggest would harm the movement by making it less distinctive. But I don’t know why you think the things I suggest would do that. I’m also interested to hear more about why you don’t think getting more members and being more influential would be a good thing.

EA’s Image Problem

• Tom_DavidsonOct 11, 2015, 8:06 AM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA Open Thread: October

  Hi, I’ve recently written an article about what I think are some image problems that effective altruism have and how we can combat them. I’d love to post on this website here so that I get feedback and stimulate discussion but don’t have enough Karma points to do so. Please like this post so that I can post it!

  If you’re worried about the material you can see an earlier draft of the article on the Effective Altruism fb group (https://​​www.facebook.com/​​groups/​​effective.altruists/​​) or the EA Hangout fb group (https://​​www.facebook.com/​​groups/​​eahangout/​​?fref=ts).