I’m troubled by two posts I’ve seen lately distinguishing between “hardcore” and “softcore” effective altruists. Even if we introduce these terms with the goal of reducing stigma, “softcore” is always going to sound a bit insulting. (Not to mention that it’s typically used to describe porn, not people.)
Do other types of movements make this distinction? Political parties include a wide spectrum of people from those who simply vote, to those who campaign for particular causes or candidates, to those who hold office and spend their entire careers to their party. “Environmentalists” include everyone from those who try to conserve energy in their daily lives to those choosing radically different lifestyles and working for major policy changes. Some religious traditions distinguish between “laypeople” and those who have taken vows, but this term doesn’t have the same dismissive connotation as “softcore” (perhaps because it’s understood that clergy and monastics could not exist without the support of the laity).
Of course, there will be variation in how involved people get with any movement. Some people will keep their engagement with effective altruism at a fairly casual level—perhaps telling friends and family about an excellent charity. Others will become deeply involved, committing much more of their time and money. People will shift between levels as their beliefs and life circumstances change, perhaps as they become more committed or develop health problems. And it’s hard to tell from the outside how difficult a particular level is for any given person; an amount of effort or money that's easy for one person will be a major stretch for another.
Having strictly defined categories of involvement doesn’t seem likely to help. Even among people who have taken some concrete step like taking the Giving What We Can pledge or organizing an EA meetup, there will be a lot of variation in effort and impact. So perhaps it makes sense to see involvement with effective altruism as a continuum rather than a two-category division.
One of the things I love about effective altruism is that it demonstrates how small changes—whether moving your donations to better charities, learning about a career you didn’t know much about, or giving away enough to put you in the world’s richest 2% instead of the richest 1%—can lead to big impacts. I would hate to see these kinds of changes minimized as “soft.”
Thanks to Michelle Hutchinson, Oliver Habryka, and Tyler Alterman for feedback; all opinions expressed are my own.
What is actually wrong with 'Effective altruists'?
If I talk about 'Christians' without much context, you will assume I am referring to the baseline Christian who believes in Jesus, God and the Resurrection, has a passing but far from comprehensive knowledge of the bible, etc. If I want to refer to a narrower group than that, I might say 'pastors', 'fundamentalist Christians', etc. I don't need to say something like 'casual Christians'.
Similarly, if I talk about 'Labour supporters' without much context, you will assume I am referring to the lowest common denominator; people who routinely vote Labour and broadly agree with the party's policy stances. Not activists, donors, politicians, or wannabe politicians.
Partly this is a numbers game; the vast majority of Christians (at least in an irreligious country like the UK) are concentrated at the casual end of the spectrum. Ditto for Labour supporters, environmentalists, and even animal welfare advocates. So if you refer to them on mass, it can be safely assumed you are talking about the casual version. Movements virtually always overwhelmingly concentrate at the casual end, because it's just very hard to get people to do anything that isn't casual.
I really don't expect EA to be any different even within a year or two if it isn't there already, and I think the only reason it looks a bit different now is because (a) the core is relatively large due to the youth of the movement and (b) we're having this discussion on the EA forum, which was created by the core for the core.
Edit: But if you insist on having a modifier, what about 'most'? If I want to communicate the fact that 'casual', 'liberal', Christians in the UK are not anti-gay-marriage, I would just say something like 'actually most Christians in the UK aren't anti-gay-marriage, even if the archbishops are'. I can imagine similar statements for EAs such as:
'Most EAs don't give nearly as much as they think they should.' 'Most EAs don't change their careers for EA reasons.' etc.
In response to edit: Most is at least something, but it makes it pretty unclear what you are driving at. Compare:
In one case you're just making a general statement about everyone. In the second you're claiming this is correlated with how extreme their attitudes are.
I prefer full-time and part-time. It's not insulting. It's quite descriptive. Let's just go with that.