Comments
The Latest NYT article on EA/SBF
1 min read ·
Headline: ‘Effective Altruism’ Led Bankman-Fried to a Little-Known Wall St. Firm
The article itself doesn't actually say much about EA, but many of the comments are (predictably) hostile. FWIW, I submitted a brief comment here as follows:
Many of the comments here reveal misunderstandings about the philosophy behind Effective Altruism (which is understandable, since it isn't really explained in the main article). For those who would like to learn more, I've written up a FAQ here: https://rychappell.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-faq
(I'm an Associate Professor of Philosophy, specializing in ethical theory.)
If others have more to add, or want to help signal-boost any better-informed comments, that might help casual readers of the NY Times to get a more accurate impression of EA.
Why does it matter? Who cares?
Do we have a mental model of who bothers reading fancy pants journalists, let alone NYT comments, and if we care about their opinions?
What's the value prop of casual readers of the NYT having a more accurate impression of EA?
I would guess that they're people, and I always prefer for people to have a more accurate impression of valuable ideas (all else equal). Some might then decide to learn more about those ideas, and act upon them in valuable ways.
(I'm not suggesting that anyone prioritize this sort of community-building over other work that may be more pressing for them. But it seems weird to dismiss it entirely.)
I worry about the forum's attentional attack surface. We allow extremely low effort signals to produce heat, which crowds out light.
I guess, on a personal level, I only ever fall into this trap when I'm procrastinating, so I want to push back against this vision of the forum as a procrastination trap, because I do suspect my experience generalizes to some degree.
Fair enough, but that's the purpose of the recent changes to the 'community' tab, right?
So I can empathise feeling frustrated about negative media perception of EA, especially if there's a strong Gell-Mann Amnesia effect involved. But these are surely rhetorical questions, whose answers are fairly obvious?
How EA is perceived by others, including institutions which have societal influence and soft power like the NYT, is of interest. Even if this particular piece doesn't matter to you, it might matter to others. The Forum is meant to be a place to appeal very widely to those in the EA movement.
You might not, but Richard cared enough to read, comment on, and share the article here. I presume some others will care about the article directly, or general trend of increasing scrutiny that EA has been under.
I'm sure data about the demographics of NYT readers, especially those online, shouldn't be too hard to find (though I didn't for this comment). I suspect that those demographics might overlap a fair way with those involved in EA, though not totally.
I mean, this seems fairly obvious? A more accurate impression leads to more people being aware of EA and feeling positive about our cause areas, then they're more likely to find the courses of action that the movement recommends and make the world better.
As a general point, I do empathise with the sense of frustration I feel in your comment. But "optics" do matter, and it's important to pay attention to what arguments for and against EA are getting major public traction - and if there are easy areas that we can set the record straight against intentionala misrepresentations or obvious mistakes, that's surely to our benefit.