Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Ben Yeoh3
0
0

I think this is a good idea. I feel there might be enough for EA adjacent to Progress Studies for this to be a field. I think Tom Westgarth was interested here too and in London you have a small progress cluster.

Reply
See in context
by DavidNash
5 min read 3

101

Building effective altruismCause prioritizationCommunityCriticism and Red Teaming ContestCommunity infrastructureEffective altruism messagingField-buildingNetwork building
Frontpage

(This is a section from a previous post that combined two ideas into one.  I thought it would be good to separate out the second idea and explore it more.)

 

It may be better to see EA as coordination rather than a marketing funnel with the end goal of working for an 'EA organisation'. 

There is still a funnel where people hear about EA and learn more but they use the frameworks, questions and EA network to see what their values are and what that means for cause[1] and career selection.

The left side of the diagram below is similar to the original funnel model from CEA, with people engaging more with EA. Rather than seeing that as the endpoint, people can then be connected to individuals and organisations in the fields they have a good fit for.

Focusing on the right side of the diagram, I've tried to represent some fields that people often consider after looking into EA. The size of the boxes aim to represent the different sizes of the fields[2], and how much overlap[3] they have with EA.

 

What could be seen as EA is the meta research, movement building and crosscutting support. Whereas organisations working on a specific cause area are in a separate field rather than part of EA (which isn't a bad thing).

It's possible that by focusing on EA as a whole rather than specific causes, we are holding back the growth of these fields. It would be surprising if the best strategies for each field were the same as the best strategy for EA.

 

What would visualising EA in this way mean for movement building?

  • More movement building on the field specific level
    • Support for cause areas to have their own version of the Centre for Effective Altruism and equivalent meta organisations
  • Less emphasis on leading people down a chain of reasoning (for example, effective altruism-->longtermism --> existential risks --> biosecurity), where they may drop off at any point, and more emphasis on connecting people directly to a field
  • More research on how to find, incubate and grow causes
    • This could lead to more meta organisations (the Centre for Effective Centre's)

One example would be when designing an EA conference the attendees would mainly be people who are undecided as to which cause/career to go into, people that can help them decide,  key EA stakeholders from each field, and people in nascent fields . This is compared to a conference that had many people that had already decided which cause area to focus on, they would probably find more value from going to a conference tailored to help dive into higher level questions where everyone had a deeper shared level of understanding.

One key issue is that there are organisations for specific causes but they tend to focus on research first, comms or lobbying second, and community building is third or fourth in their priorities. The organisation might occasionally arrange a conference every few years or some fellowships, but they generally don't have their top goal as movement building.  When something is a third priority, it often doesn't get done well, or happen at all.  This is in comparison to CEA, which I think has helped grow EA by having movement building be the top priority.

There are some projects in these spaces and I've attempted to list a few of them here, but there are still quite a few gaps, and the organisations that do exist are generally small and don't face much competition.

 

Field Building Gaps

  • Global Development
  • Longtermism
    • Giving money- Not much for individuals, but foundations are attempting to work out what to fund, and there is the Long Term Future Fund
    • Career - 80,000 Hours
    • Coordination - There doesn't seem to be any one organisation doing this, although there are a variety of projects like this and there is a newsletter
  • AI Alignment
    • Giving money - There is a yearly post by Larks, given that it seems that it isn't hard to fund good projects in this space, this probably isn't much of an issue
    • Career - AI Safety Support for technical research and 80,000 Hours for technical and policy
    • Coordination - The Future of Life Institute has organised some small conferences, but their remit is wider than just AI alignment
  • Animal Welfare
    • Giving money - Animal Charity Evaluators
    • Career - Animal Advocacy Careers
    • Coordination - Not much but there is a new project aiming to cover this gap
  • Alternative Proteins
    • Good Food Institute seem to help coordinate money, careers and the field as a whole
  • Biosecurity
    • I couldn't think of an organisation for any of the three categories, although there are informal networks and a new hub being set up in Boston
  • Existential Risk
    • Careers - 80,000 Hours
    • Coordination - CSER, FHI, GCR and FLI all do parts of this, but they tend to focus on research rather than having movement building be a top priority
  • Suffering Risks
    • Coordination - Center on Long-Term Risk, although they focus mainly on research
  • Environmentalism
    • Giving money - Giving Green, Founders Pledge
    • Careers - Work On Climate has a very active slack community but is only tangentially related to EA
    • Coordination - Effective Environmentalism, but it's only volunteer run

There are lots of other causes that could be added here and they often have much less field building infrastructure.

With fields that are already large there are usually organisations that do some of this work, and it may not help to reinvent the wheel.  Although it is still worth considering if there is value to coordinating the people interested in EA within a larger cause. One example is that there are thousands of global development conferences, but none for EA & global development. I think there would be value to having that organised, allowing for people in EA to tackle the most important questions in the field, and allowing people in global development to get a strong intro to EA if it is their first event.

 

If anyone is interested in tackling one of these gaps, I'd love to chat about it and see if there is a way I can help, just send me a message.

  1. ^

    I use field and cause interchangeably throughout

  2. ^

    If this was done to scale, then the amount of money/people/organisations in global development would probably be hundreds or thousands of times bigger than the other fields. 

    Also lots of interventions often help in multiple fields, for example alt proteins impacting climate change, land use, etc. I haven't attempted to take that into account.

  3. ^

    This is a rough guess and represented by how much of the green funnel overlaps with the different fields

  1. ^

    I mean an organisation that does some of the following; conferences and other events, online discussion spaces, supporting subgroups and organisers, outreach, community health, connecting members of the network with each other

Show all footnotes

101

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments3


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Miranda_Zhang6
1
0

I found the concrete implications distinguishing between this more cause-oriented model of EA really useful, thanks!

I also agree, at least based on my own perception of the current cultural shift (away from GHD and farmed animal welfare, and towards longtermist approaches), that the most marginally impactful meta-EA opportunities might increasingly be in field-building.

Reply
Chris Leong6
0
0

When I was at EAG London this year, I noticed that there was a fair amount of energy and excitement towards AI Safety specific field building. I'm fairly keen on this since a lot has to go right in order for AI safety to go well and I think this is more likely when there are people specifically trying to develop a community that can achieve these goals, rather than having to compromise between satisfying the needs of the different cause areas.

One thought I had: If there is an EA conference dedicated to a specific cause area, it might also be worthwhile having some boothes related to other EA causes areas in order to address concerns about insularity.

Reply
Ben Yeoh3
0
0

I think this is a good idea. I feel there might be enough for EA adjacent to Progress Studies for this to be a field. I think Tom Westgarth was interested here too and in London you have a small progress cluster.

Reply
More from DavidNash
143
Nigeria's Missing 50 Million People
DavidNash
· · 14m read
17
17
56
Looking into Project 2025: USAID
DavidNash
· · 7m read
6
6
32
Impact in Global Development: A Discussion Series
DavidNash
· · 5m read
1
1
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
22
Call For a University of Minnesota EA Group
Kenneth_Diao
· · 2m read
1
1
49
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
8
8
View more