My biggest concern about EA thus far has been addressed to an extent by the week 7 readings!

While it does reassure me that the average EA's writing and work are a lot more "maximizy" than their actions, it does add further clarity and a closer semblance to objectivity to assess potential blindsides while defining the maximand. This again ties in with how we individually compartmentalize our independent beliefs, and analyze how it ties in with and/or contradicts what we see as solid evidence. 

It also heartened me to see that "EA beyond the west" is an identified area as well. Our collective efforts to do good can be nuanced with the diversification of perspectives we have.

One question of mine that still persists is lies in the fundamental of EA goals. Particularly, the (very valid) aim of EA to reduce suffering - a phenomenon that is subjective, nuanced and quite often a matter of perspective. 

My criticisms about EA:

As a negative utilitarian I'm bitter about all the X-risk prevention enthusiasts trying to stop me from pushing the big red button

Jokes aside - I got very excited about EA when I learned about it. At some point I became aware of the excitement and I had a concern pop up that it sounds too good to be true, almost like a cult. I consider myself rather impressionable/easy to manipulate so I learned that when I feel very hyped about something it should make me healthily suspicious.

I'm grateful for the article earlier in the chapter that presented some good faith criticism and I agree with some of its points

Some thoughts:

• EA may feel alienating to people who aren't top-of-their-field 150iq professionals. I very much relate to this post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/x9Rn5SfapcbbZaZy9/ea-for-dumb-people . Maybe it's for the better and results in higher talent density and better reputation for the movement, maybe we're missing out on some skilled people/potential donors or critical mass.
• I'd love to see some statistics on why people leave the movement, and what the rate is. I suspect that moral perfectionism leading to self-neglect and burnout is an occupational hazard among EAs (like it is among animal advocates).
• It's somewhat difficult to talk about EA to regular people. Look, there's this movement that can literally save the world from apocalypse (cultish), and we also believe that shrimp welfare is important (insane). On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't start my conversations like that.

I enjoyed this well-thought EA handbook - covering as much possible EA topics that can be think of - down to the details & providing practical/solution links to support it. 

I think a wonderful idea that we could create 2 further introductory EA handbook - one for kids/teens, ages 12-18 & one for adults that uses everyday, informal english language that also would like to get involved in EA, but intimidated with the complexity of the language used thoughtout (e.g. me, confessely skimmed so much information to get this far!)

Introduce the ideas with the most condensed & relevent information - I do see comments below thinking the same thing.

Maybe the quickest solution is that AI read all your well-put together EA handbook & create the 2 (perhaps more - AI might think to make more for different types/categories of people) - and you can proofread to see if it is your liking!

But thank you for starting/collecting the most important in the first place - it is the wonderful start!

My original reason for joining the introductory course was really to improve my vocabulary and confidence when engaging with charities and Non-profit organizations. But I have approached it actually as a formal introduction to a contemporary branch of moral philosophy with practical application. It has been a pleasure, I haven't pushed myself to learn so much in so long it’s been a breath of fresh air. Not to mention it re-affirmed my decision to pledge 10% of my income to Giving What We Can.

I think for me it’s that latter part of how to practically apply EA principles in everyday life, that is missing and not reminded is also fine and possible. Because for some individuals who cannot fully commit to EA with their time and resources, they can only return to it conscientiously as kind of a code of conduct they wish to live by to be a better person as a result of learning about EA. 

For example “We are always in triage” and “Be a good ancestor” - I feel like these can be written as “Ordinary Mind” EA. That is to say, as an individual you are being effective with your mind to notice an opportunity or decision that is altruistic / doing the most good at that precise moment in time. Whereas “Calculating Bayes-Rules” and “Calibrating Predictions” are parked in the “R&D Mind” EA when deep in projects, working as a team and applying the models / frameworks. 

I suppose an analogy would be if EA had a collection of Analects, what would they be as a moral guide to live by?

I understand the key values in determining cause areas to do the most good, but how to apply that in mind in everyday life? Surely the “Scout Mindset” (which I have since borrowed and now using as a professional behavioural goal for my team where I work) is morally sensible in many aspects of life? Basically I feel like the personal psychological benefits of realising and applying the values in everyday life could be as socially and collectively rewarding as effective-giving itself to cause areas?

I think maybe a section on “Ordinary Mind” EA would be a great summary and chance for those that don’t fully commit to flying the EA flag straight away but still wish to put the principles or code into practice on their own terms.

Concerns about EA

The focus of creating as much value as possible in the Expected Value calculation is one I am not very sure about. I understand the concept, but as someone who works with data, I’d be more drawn to causes that have been proven to have high value already. Thus, the idea of fringe ideas would not be one of my immediate concerns. I always feel that there are more pertinent issues which are visible and measurable that we should focus on currently. This is the same thought process I hold behind not being an advocate of longtermism. I believe we already have very many important causes right now that I’d rather we focus on.

Another area I’m a bit skeptical about is the expansion of the empathy circle. For most of my life I’ve not had a lot of empathy towards non-human animals. I would not want them tortured, but I would not say that they deserve as much empathy as human beings. Again, I feel like our circle of empathy still has a long way to go in dealing with humans so conversations on expanding it to other sentient beings (and stretching the idea as far as algorithms) is not a cause I feel holds that much importance to me.

Finally, one of my biggest concerns is the urgency placed on climate change in the community. When talking of the most important causes, I feel like climate change is under-ranked as a massive danger to the future of our world. I find it misleading to place speculative causes such as AI risks, catastrophic pandemics, nuclear war, and great power conflicts ahead of climate change in importance because climate change is something we are currently experiencing and it’s only bound to get worse. In my opinion, climate change is the top risk as it promises to destabilise society in the next few compared to some other risks (the warming targets we have set are on course to be missed as soon as 2030). The more we continue sliding into worse climate scenarios, the more social issues shall arise and they shall very possibly lead to the rise of all these other risks - AI/nuclear/biological wars triggered by the race for resources such as water, higher land away from the rising oceans, productive soil, and many more. Thus, I believe the cause prioritization should be reconsidered to account for these second factor effects of climate change.

The Introduction to Effective Altruism course is well-designed and accessible to participants from all over the world. Its interface is optimized for low data usage, making it easily accessible on mobile phones and other low-spec devices. The content is clear and understandable for anyone with basic reading and writing skills. Additionally, it is well-summarized and enriched with engaging facts, making the learning experience both informative and enjoyable.

Now, on criticisms: EA Everywhere on Slack feels overwhelmingly centered on Europe/ America. It is filled with opportunities that are primarily accessible to people from Europe, along with event announcements that are often restricted to the region. For someone like me, coming from Uganda and seeking a like-minded community to grow and develop my skills while staying committed to my country, this exclusion is disheartening. It creates a sense of isolation and limitation.

A more inclusive approach is needed, EA opportunities should be accessible to everyone, regardless of location. There should be strong support structures to uplift individuals from underrepresented and less developed regions. After all, the essence of EA is to find the most effective ways to do good, using evidence. That mission should extend to creating equal opportunities for all that are worthy it.

Many of the examples presented in the course are heavily focused on Europe. However, if we are truly committed to solving global problems, we must incorporate diverse contexts from different parts of the world. This exposure would help participants understand a broader range of challenges and design interventions that are effective and scalable across various regions. Perhaps an example from Africa could provide valuable solutions in Europe, just as a European example might offer insights applicable to Africa. By incorporating diverse perspectives, we can foster cross-regional learning and design interventions that are more adaptable and effective on a global scale. Africa, for instance, offers valuable insights on moral philosophy and ethical considerations given its diversity, yet it is barely mentioned. The course gives the impression that all interventions are meant for the U.S. or Europe, overlooking the rich perspectives and pressing issues faced in other parts of the world. A more inclusive approach would ensure that effective altruism remains truly global in its impact.

All the personalities highlighted in the course are white and from either Europe or America. (This is not about race, but rather an observation on representation.) Have Black individuals or people from outside Europe and America not contributed to this movement? Have their efforts gone unrecognized, or is this course unintentionally reinforcing the idea that intelligence and philanthropy are primarily Western traits? If effective altruism is truly a global movement, it should acknowledge and celebrate contributions from diverse backgrounds. Representation matters—not just for inclusivity, but for inspiring a broader audience to engage in meaningful change.

Overall, the course feels like it was designed primarily for a European/ American audience, with supporting structures that task them with finding solutions to the world's biggest problems. However, these "global" challenges seem to focus mainly on issues affecting the developed world, which, while important, represent only a small fraction of the broader global landscape. This approach risks overlooking critical problems faced by the majority of the world's population and reinforces a narrow perspective on what truly constitutes the world's most pressing challenges to only what is identified in the first world countries. Try to put this in the ITN framework but from a perspective of someone coming from an underdeveloped world. I acknowledge that my perspective on this has been shaped by a neartermist lens and not a longtermist lens.

Disclaimer: These are simply my observations, and there is a considerable possibility that I may be wrong. Please take them with a pinch of salt.

I have no criticism so far but my concerns are related with the topics and reading materials. Some of the reading materials are too detailed , maybe some of them should be summarized.

Part 2

At first i had a problem understanding radical empathy ( the animal welfare part specifically) but after doing some readings i have started to get a clear understanding.

The artificial intelligence ideas  were surprising being the first time I was encountering the topic.  But after the readings and session it now makes a lot of sense and I think that it is important to learn  and research more about AI ,its advantages, disadvantages and how it will shape the future or destroy it.

The idea that AI poses a bigger risk than Climate Change doesnt sit well with me. I feel like for AI we can be able to understand and know how to mitigate the risks but for climate change, it is more  challenging because it affects all aspects of human well being, their health , it affects animals and plants, destroys places and so forth. Climate change should be  given the first priority  and we  should be worried about it because we are seeing the climate crises happening and for such climate crises we better work on ways of  preventing the crises rather than waiting for the crises to happen then start responding.

I'm going to share my answers. Please keep in mind that they might have been already tackled by other people elsewhere. In any case, those are the critiques I have so far.

Superficial references problem:
The handbook almost never recommends books on the subjects (except those written by MacAskill, Ord, Singer, etc), but instead they tend to recommend blog posts, Wikipedia, other EA-aligned webpages, or, at best, philosophy papers. In my opinion, there could be recommendations of textbooks on cost-effectiveness analysis, cause prioritization, economics, ethics, statistics, cognitive biases, etc. Since webpages and standalone papers are not nearly as good as textbooks to learn a subject, I believe recommendations of books are definitely warranted, otherwise we can get the impression that all the theoretical background that EAs have are those shallow references.

The neglectedness problem:
First, it's not clear how to distinguish between these two scenarios: (1) The cause is unfairly neglected, that is, much more neglected than it ought to be, considering its scale and tractability; and (2) The cause is neglected because it's really a bad cause to work for (due, for instance, to low scale or low tractability), in which case it being neglected is actually a sign that we shouldn't work on it. In order to help us sort out what's the underlying scenario, I think we should see whether other institutions/researchers have attempted to work on the issue in the past, and not just look at the absolute numbers of funding/researchers that are going to that cause in the present. I don't remember seeing this historical analysis being done. And maybe we should employ other strategies besides this historical analysis to sort things out.

Second, there's another shortcoming of just assessing neglectedness by looking at the amount of dollars being poured into a cause. People might be working to solve a problem and pouring lots of money into it using an inefficient method. For instance, suppose that we lived in a world where hundreds of billions of dollars were being spent on leafletting about the animal cause, and suppose that it is the case that leafletting is a very inefficient method to promote concrete changes to animal well-being. Then even though there are hundreds of billions of dollars being put into the Animal Cause, there would still be a low-hanging fruit, if we assume that, for instance, corporate campaigns are a hundred times more efficient than leafletting. So just looking at the sheer number of donated dollars to the Animal Welfare cause could be very misleading because even though it's not "numerically" neglected, we're not making use of the most effective methods.

Third, I'm not convinced that the curve of improvement as a function of funding/researching has a log shape (or any curve that implies diminishing marginal returns)

Fourth, even if it has a log shape, in order to infer that an additional person/dollar of funding would have a greater impact on cause A compared to cause B, we would need to know the parameters of the log curve for cause A and cause B, which we don't. For example, check www.desmos.com/calculator/ohwiagg7zi. Here we have two causes with a log curve, but with different parameters (hence, different shapes), and we can see that even though cause red is receiving more funding than cause green, the marginal return of cause red is still higher than the marginal return of cause B, which makes comparisons between different cause with regards to neglectedness very hard, if not impossible.

Blindspots: By "blindspots", I mean arguments that I've never seen being raised in the given discussions, though they seem to be crucial.

[The logic of the larder] blindspot in the Animal Welfare discussion: It's not crystal clear what is the net value of the lives of each factory-farmed species. For instance, if some species have net positive lives, then interventions that aim to reduce the number of factory-farmed animals will cause a loss of total value. Another thing to consider is that, because of the crops to sustain factory-farmed animals, they have a negative impact on the number of wild animals, and if we consider that the lives of wild animals are worse than the lives of some factory-farmed animals, then abolishing factory farms will have this other source of disvalue as well, by creating lives whose quality is even worse.

[Intelligence restart] blindspot in the Extinction Risk discussion: If only humanity goes extinct, couldn't some other species as intelligent as (or even more intelligent than) humans eventually evolve from other animals, say, from the surviving primates?

I feel questions 1 and 2 are essentially the same, with the second having a more partitioned approach. Did I overlook some important difference between them?

Hi! Just want to point out a typo: "This chapter we’d like you (...)". Thanks! :-)

-Going by the foundational exposition which have aided my introduction to the E.A community,I must have to state,I appreciate the reasoning and facts basis,which remain the foundational tools,geared towards doing good,in relation to prioritizing matters,which will yield the most benefits,as one of the striking features of the e.a,that really attracted me,to joining this community. -My concerns have to do with certain moral truths,which at some point can be objective or subjectively inclined,thereby been relative,with respect to location,times and settings,as how can the e.a community,set standards as regards such,in relation to handling issues.

• my criticism so far from what we've discussed,comes from the approach on climate issues,which the e.a community gives fair attention to,as it should be given a topnotch priority to, despite global influence,both on expenditures and engagements,by CSO's and several institutions. -finally,what I like about the e.a is it's incorporation of various categories of individuals,in relation to professions,which I see strength been harnessed in diversity , because of its underpinning ideals,which I subscribe too, because it's aids balancing inequalities and also giving voice,to the marginalized,while respectfully engaging all and sundry. B.
• based on materials and study engagements with our facilitator,I really understood,what we discussed and the studies I undertook, despite grey areas,which were subsequently made clear. -after each topic discussions and engagements,for me personally ,I will gladly say, enlightenment was attained,as even on issues which I personally might not be cool with,the facts and reasoning, alongside discussions ushered in awareness.
• one thing I found surprising was the issue of farm animals,which the e.a community is really engaging on,as based on indepth studies,I got to see reasons on how it makes sense, alongside the need to used plant based sources as alternative protein. The point is, giving my background as an African, initially I view it as a waste, because,in Africa,the bush is one of our source,were we kill different species of animals for food,asuch,I feel to reduce such, animal farming would aid minimizing such influences,but as it stand,the multiplying effect on both the animals and the environment, owing to animal farming and it's effect also to the animals themselves,based on evidential facts,which I came across, owing to the studies, aided my perceptional change, with respect to that. -one of the issues ,which was not surprising,but I have a different reservation about, have to do with the issue of farm animals ,which I stated above,as my hesitation to it,has to do with my reasoning of it, from an African perception,which I view animals,as just to be used as food, nonetheless,as stated above,the exposition via evidence and reasoning in line with e.a program, alongside other materials,have given me a different perception to that.which have aided my receptiveness to better light,of viewing the issues,as they need to be protected.