The latest Slatestarcodex post distinguishes between pushing and pulling goals. A pulling goal is when you start off with the goal and figure out how to achieve it (ie. end world poverty), a pushing goal is when you are given a structure and have to choose a goal that can be accomplished with that structure (ie. write a 2000 word essay).

He remembers when an atheism society was set up in his college by, "There was a Christian Club, and a Buddhist Club, so why shouldn’t the atheists get a club too? So they wrote the charter, they set a meeting time, and then we realized none of us knew what exactly the Atheist Club was supposed to do. The Christian Club prayed and did Bible study; the Buddhist club meditated, the atheist club…sat around and tried to brainstorm Atheist Club activities. Occasionally we came up with some, like watching movies relevant to atheism, or having speakers come in and talk about how creationism was really bad. But we weren’t doing this because we really wanted to watch movies relevant to atheism, or because we were interested in what speakers had to say about creationism. We were doing this because we’d started an Atheist Club and now we had to come up with a purpose for it."

An Effective Altruism society can easily end up existing for much the same reason. For example, there are a bunch of other charitable societies at my university, why shouldn't EA have such a club too? It is very possible that an Effective Altruism society will spend time organising talks that no-one particularly wants or hosting discussions that no-one is particularly interested in, just because they feel that they should.

Scott Alexander suggests a solution to this problem:

"In the example of the Atheist Club, that thing might have been starting the club in the first place. But assuming that we genuinely want to start the club, then the presence of a pushing goal means we don’t understand why we wanted to start the club. If we wanted to start it because we wanted to hang out with other atheists, then that offers a blueprint for a solution to the problem – instead of planning all these movies and speakers, we should just hang out. If we did it because we thought it was important for atheism to be more visible on campus, then again, that offers a blueprint for a solution – spend our sessions trying to improve atheism’s campus visibility. If we just sit there saying “I guess we have an Atheist Club now, better think of something to do at meetings”, then it seems like something important hasn’t been fully examined."

To assist with figuring out the purpose of your EA meetup, I decided to break down potential goals for an EA meetup.

 

  • Direct impact:

    • This is the end goal of EA and important in terms of maintaining credibility and convincing people to want to join

    • Examples: donating money volunteering time

  • Advocacy:

    • Promoting EA ideas and behaviours outside of the EA movement. Successful advocacy might make it easier for the movement to grow as a side-effect, but this is of course hard to measure.

    • Examples: The Life You Can Save promoting effective giving and giving pledges, 40k promoting give-to-earn and the idea of replaceability

  • Recruitment:

    • In order for a new EA society to survive, the most important task is to recruit more committed members. Unfortunately, while the original members may be committed to recruitment in-and-of-itself, new members are unlikely to immediately be onboard with this goal - they tend to need some other reason to be a member.

    • Examples: Convincing people to self-identify as an EA or join an EA organisation

  • Effectiveness Training:

    • Teaching EAs how to be altruistic more effectively. This is important, but I suspect that this quickly hits diminishing returns after a member is aware of most of the core concepts.

    • Examples: 80k workshop, concept clubs

  • Generic Skills Training:

    • Teaching EAs generic skills that can indirectly help them to be more effective.

    • Examples: Center for Applied Rationality, Toastmasters like exercises, Interview training

  • Community:

    • Providing EAs with opportunities to socialise, meet each other and have fun. In terms benefiting the EA movement a a whole, impact is mainly related to side effects such as increased recruitment, better member retention, more networking and increased collaboration. If excessive focus is placed on this goal

    • Examples: Dinners, general conversation, watching a movie


I think that it is important to figure out the goals of your community before deciding on specific activities.
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I agree with this a lot but did you mean 80k rather than some kind of Warhammer 40k workshop (which sounds fantastic as well).

I guess 40 k could be what you do with your time outside of a career.

40K is also a career consulting organization for people with much lower life expectancy.

EA dark humor.

I agree that diminishing returns are hit very quickly when the focus is on effective "donating." I am interested in skills training, and I have proposed a group therapy-like format, where EAs discuss their own experiences with altruism and effectiveness--including complications/issues, success stories, and even promoting altruistic qualities in other aspects of life.

For example, I think we could learn a lot from the officer in the video below--to see through all the divisive boundaries of the current system and do the best you can in the current situation. These traits take practice, and community support is vital. Open-mindedness, empathy, willingness, and resolve.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/19/dancing-cop-black-lives-matter-bbq.ksnw

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by