Speaking as somebody who isnt into EA, I assure you most of the people criticizing EA havent donated a dime or spent a single minute volunteering. Everybody talks the talk about how to charity but nobody walks the walk
If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first? Seems like no to me? It feels like you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that isn't there, the authors weren't correcting the movement on 'how to charity,' but rather problematic behaviors encoded into the group's mode of operation.
GP is not saying you have to join EA to criticize it. They are saying that you should probably try volunteering or giving a signiciant fraction of your excess income to charity before criticizing.
It's not "joining the cult", unless you consider altruism as a whole to be the cult.
As someone who doesn't have the resources: of course I don't.
But I also don't want the markets dictated by the whims of some dissociated jackoff arrogantly and ineffectively disbursing obscene amounts of money, and certainly not with the momentum of some centralized institution. I need cheaper food and cheaper rent and cheaper utilities prices to be able to effectively act as an altruist - you have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others - and when all of the resources are being siphoned off and distributed to the top, myself and millions of others simply lack the capacity.
And if many hands makes for little work, doesn't that give way to a more effective framework than a handful of people controlling affecting altruism? I reckon so.
Not to mention the whole free market thesis being wholly disrupted by the shrinkage of the middle class in developed nations, leaving the have-nots subordinated to the haves and ever more preoccupied with just getting by.
Well maybe I'm in the minority then, but I donate monthly to a number of charities and causes and I think Effective Altruism is obvious bunk created by grifters.
I also think I should be taxed more and more taxes should be used for social programs and welfare, I'm certainly not best positioned to decide the most effective use of my money.
that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own.
This seems a bit odd... the issues happened within the context of the group's activities and the problems were shielded by EA. This is like suggesting the Catholic Church had nothing to do with child abuse and we should only blame the priests.
There is no HR department or board of quality assurance for effective altruism: it's like Spiderman fandom: the only qualification for becoming a fan of Spiderman is saying that you are a fan of Spiderman. The other Spiderman fans have no way to kick you out of the fandom. EA is more like Spiderman fandom than it is like priesthood in the Catholic Church.
At least in the Bay Area, I heard that the people who regularly organize in-person events will refuse entry to certain men who have a history of preying on women, but really there is no way to prevent those men or anyone else from persisting in publicly proclaiming that they are effective altruists.
If a web site owner misbehaves, no one concludes that the misbehavior reflects poorly on all the other web site owners because everyone understands that there is no way for the other web site owners to eject the misbehaving owner from their ranks. The fact that some of these web site owners are in fact very wealthy and own buildings is not relevant.
Similarly, effectivealtruism.org is just one non-profit in an ecosystem of dozens and does not own the trademark "effective altruism" or "effective altruist" (which might give it some ability to control how the trademark is used or by whom it is used).
The fact that some of these web site owners are in fact very wealthy and own buildings is not relevant.
You're overgeneralizing too far. This is like saying just because a church has a building doesn't mean they are an organization. The building was purchased with the expressed intent of being used for the group. It appears you trying to suggest there are weak ties where there are actually strong ones. These people all know each other and shared ideas.
more like: just because a church is an organization, it doesn't mean that every christian believer is a member of that organization. like there is no requirement to be a member of a church to practice christianity, there is no requirement to be a member of any EA organization to practice EA.
correct. and bad people doing EA or bad people doing EA badly doesn't make EA bad.
I'm not a huge fan of EA, but I'm sick of seeing HN and EA endorse tribalism by saying that all Christians this or all Republicans this or all white people that or all rich people that....
Comments
Speaking as somebody who isnt into EA, I assure you most of the people criticizing EA havent donated a dime or spent a single minute volunteering. Everybody talks the talk about how to charity but nobody walks the walk
If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first? Seems like no to me? It feels like you are trying to point out a hypocrisy that isn't there, the authors weren't correcting the movement on 'how to charity,' but rather problematic behaviors encoded into the group's mode of operation.
GP is not saying you have to join EA to criticize it. They are saying that you should probably try volunteering or giving a signiciant fraction of your excess income to charity before criticizing.
It's not "joining the cult", unless you consider altruism as a whole to be the cult.
If I want to criticize a cult do I need to join it or try on their beliefs first
no, but you should investigate the claims and verify that the criticism is fair.
As someone who doesn't have the resources: of course I don't.
But I also don't want the markets dictated by the whims of some dissociated jackoff arrogantly and ineffectively disbursing obscene amounts of money, and certainly not with the momentum of some centralized institution. I need cheaper food and cheaper rent and cheaper utilities prices to be able to effectively act as an altruist - you have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others - and when all of the resources are being siphoned off and distributed to the top, myself and millions of others simply lack the capacity.
And if many hands makes for little work, doesn't that give way to a more effective framework than a handful of people controlling affecting altruism? I reckon so.
Not to mention the whole free market thesis being wholly disrupted by the shrinkage of the middle class in developed nations, leaving the have-nots subordinated to the haves and ever more preoccupied with just getting by.
The working classes of developed nations need systematic help. Unequivocally.
Poor people in underdeveloped nations also need help.
EA targets the latter need, but that does not invalidate the former need.
Unfortunately, people like SBF, who it'd be fair to consider enemies of the working class, associated themselves with EA and have tarnished the brand.
Well maybe I'm in the minority then, but I donate monthly to a number of charities and causes and I think Effective Altruism is obvious bunk created by grifters.
I also think I should be taxed more and more taxes should be used for social programs and welfare, I'm certainly not best positioned to decide the most effective use of my money.
I echo this 100%.
And how do you know that?
Correct.
And there's a sickness in our society, that a person/movement/concept is judged by those associated with it, instead of on its own.
This seems a bit odd... the issues happened within the context of the group's activities and the problems were shielded by EA. This is like suggesting the Catholic Church had nothing to do with child abuse and we should only blame the priests.
There is no HR department or board of quality assurance for effective altruism: it's like Spiderman fandom: the only qualification for becoming a fan of Spiderman is saying that you are a fan of Spiderman. The other Spiderman fans have no way to kick you out of the fandom. EA is more like Spiderman fandom than it is like priesthood in the Catholic Church.
At least in the Bay Area, I heard that the people who regularly organize in-person events will refuse entry to certain men who have a history of preying on women, but really there is no way to prevent those men or anyone else from persisting in publicly proclaiming that they are effective altruists.
I mean they purchased a building for their HQ and had group meetups and stuff. It's a bit less nebulous than your spiderman fans example.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33903850
If a web site owner misbehaves, no one concludes that the misbehavior reflects poorly on all the other web site owners because everyone understands that there is no way for the other web site owners to eject the misbehaving owner from their ranks. The fact that some of these web site owners are in fact very wealthy and own buildings is not relevant.
Similarly, effectivealtruism.org is just one non-profit in an ecosystem of dozens and does not own the trademark "effective altruism" or "effective altruist" (which might give it some ability to control how the trademark is used or by whom it is used).
You're overgeneralizing too far. This is like saying just because a church has a building doesn't mean they are an organization. The building was purchased with the expressed intent of being used for the group. It appears you trying to suggest there are weak ties where there are actually strong ones. These people all know each other and shared ideas.
more like: just because a church is an organization, it doesn't mean that every christian believer is a member of that organization. like there is no requirement to be a member of a church to practice christianity, there is no requirement to be a member of any EA organization to practice EA.
correct. and bad people doing EA or bad people doing EA badly doesn't make EA bad.
I'm not a huge fan of EA, but I'm sick of seeing HN and EA endorse tribalism by saying that all Christians this or all Republicans this or all white people that or all rich people that....
-rich white Republican Christian