The Nonlinear Library EA - It is called Effective Altruism, not Altruistic Effectiveness by Timon Renzelmann
Dec 21, 2023
09:20
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: It is called Effective Altruism, not Altruistic Effectiveness, published by Timon Renzelmann on December 21, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
This post is a personal reflection on certain attitudes I have encountered in the EA community that I believe can be misleading. It is primarily based on intuition, not thorough research and surveys.
It is not news that the EA community has an unbalanced demographic, with men in the majority.
I have heard from several women what they dislike about the EA community and this post is what I have taken from those conversations. I think that if we can move more in the direction I'm describing, the EA community can become warmer and more welcoming to all genders and races (and also more effective at doing good).
I'd like to note that I don't think what I'm about to describe is a widespread problem, but a phenomenon that may occur in some places. Most of my experiences with the EA community have been very positive. I meet mostly caring people with whom I can have interesting, sometimes controversial discussions. And I often meet people who are very willing to help.
Now to the subject:
Some women I have spoken to have described a "lack of empathy" in the group, or, more specifically, that EA people came across as "tech bros" who lacked humility and wouldn't help a stranger because it wouldn't be the most effective thing to do. In an introductory discussion group we ran (in our university group), one of the participants perceived some of EA's ideas as "cold-hearted" and was very critical of the abstract, sometimes detached way of trying to calculate how to do good most effectively.
I believe that these impressions and experiences point to risks associated with certain EA-related ideas.
The idea of optimization
Firstly, the idea of optimising/maximising one's impact is fraught with risks, which have been described already here, here and here (and maybe elsewhere, too).
To judge between actions or causes as more or less worthy of our attention can certainly seem cold-hearted. While this approach is valuable for triage and for prioritising in difficult situations, it also has a dark side when it justifies not caring about what we might normally care about. We should not discredit what might be judged as lesser goods just because some metric suggests it. It shouldn't lead us to lose our humility (impacts are uncertain and we are not omniscient) as well as our sense of caring.
What kind of community are we if people don't feel comfortable talking about their private lives because they don't optimise everything, don't spend their free time researching or trying to make a difference? When people think that spending time volunteering for less effective non-profits might not be valued or even dismissed? What is the point of an ineffective soup kitchen, after all it is a waste of time in terms of improving QALYs?
I have no doubt that even the thought of encountering such insensitive comments makes you feel uncomfortable.
The following quote might appear to conflict with the goal of EA, but I think it doesn't and makes and important point.
"There is no hierarchy of compassionate action. Based on our interests, skills and what truly moves us, we each find our own way, helping to alleviate suffering in whatever way we can." - Joseph Goldstein (2007) in A Heart Full of Peace
What we are trying to do is called Effective Altruism, not Altruistic Effectiveness, and we should be trying to be altruistic in the first place, that is, good and caring people.[1]
The idea of focusing on consequences
I also think that an exaggerated focus on consequences can be misleading in a social context, as well as detrimental in terms of personal well-being. Even if one supports consequentialism, focusing on consequences may not be the best strategy for achieving the...
This post is a personal reflection on certain attitudes I have encountered in the EA community that I believe can be misleading. It is primarily based on intuition, not thorough research and surveys.
It is not news that the EA community has an unbalanced demographic, with men in the majority.
I have heard from several women what they dislike about the EA community and this post is what I have taken from those conversations. I think that if we can move more in the direction I'm describing, the EA community can become warmer and more welcoming to all genders and races (and also more effective at doing good).
I'd like to note that I don't think what I'm about to describe is a widespread problem, but a phenomenon that may occur in some places. Most of my experiences with the EA community have been very positive. I meet mostly caring people with whom I can have interesting, sometimes controversial discussions. And I often meet people who are very willing to help.
Now to the subject:
Some women I have spoken to have described a "lack of empathy" in the group, or, more specifically, that EA people came across as "tech bros" who lacked humility and wouldn't help a stranger because it wouldn't be the most effective thing to do. In an introductory discussion group we ran (in our university group), one of the participants perceived some of EA's ideas as "cold-hearted" and was very critical of the abstract, sometimes detached way of trying to calculate how to do good most effectively.
I believe that these impressions and experiences point to risks associated with certain EA-related ideas.
The idea of optimization
Firstly, the idea of optimising/maximising one's impact is fraught with risks, which have been described already here, here and here (and maybe elsewhere, too).
To judge between actions or causes as more or less worthy of our attention can certainly seem cold-hearted. While this approach is valuable for triage and for prioritising in difficult situations, it also has a dark side when it justifies not caring about what we might normally care about. We should not discredit what might be judged as lesser goods just because some metric suggests it. It shouldn't lead us to lose our humility (impacts are uncertain and we are not omniscient) as well as our sense of caring.
What kind of community are we if people don't feel comfortable talking about their private lives because they don't optimise everything, don't spend their free time researching or trying to make a difference? When people think that spending time volunteering for less effective non-profits might not be valued or even dismissed? What is the point of an ineffective soup kitchen, after all it is a waste of time in terms of improving QALYs?
I have no doubt that even the thought of encountering such insensitive comments makes you feel uncomfortable.
The following quote might appear to conflict with the goal of EA, but I think it doesn't and makes and important point.
"There is no hierarchy of compassionate action. Based on our interests, skills and what truly moves us, we each find our own way, helping to alleviate suffering in whatever way we can." - Joseph Goldstein (2007) in A Heart Full of Peace
What we are trying to do is called Effective Altruism, not Altruistic Effectiveness, and we should be trying to be altruistic in the first place, that is, good and caring people.[1]
The idea of focusing on consequences
I also think that an exaggerated focus on consequences can be misleading in a social context, as well as detrimental in terms of personal well-being. Even if one supports consequentialism, focusing on consequences may not be the best strategy for achieving the...