After following ACX for a few years, getting more immersed in EA activities, and seeing the Mastermind post, I think an activity in which I’ve been engaged with for over a decade may be worth a shot among EA groups and meetups: Socrates Café. I was a bit surprised that it hadn’t been mentioned on the EA Forum before now, but better now than never.

The modern incarnation of Socrates Café has its origins with author Christopher Phillips (TED talk in 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWNOa-Q0S6c, https://socratescafe.com/?page_id=56). Long story short, it’s a group where individuals, using the Socratic method, delve into philosophical topics. From the meaning of life and the existence of morality to every manner of “is” and “should” you can conjure up, the group picks a topic, and the discussion begins. Extensive knowledge of particular philosophers and philosophies isn’t a prerequisite unless the group wants to create that kind of focus. We discuss topics and inquire with each other from our different perspectives. It’s not a formal organization, merely an idea in the public domain. I participated in a local Socrates Café group for many years since moving to Colorado. There was a core group of people from all walks of life, all generally cursed with thinking too much. 

When COVID hit, I considered branching out online to start my own Socrates Café within an organization I currently lead. After some thought and considering my own irritability with people who cannot figure out how to use a mute button, the decision was made to hold off until we could all meet in person. When the bulk of the pandemic was in the rearview mirror, I fired things up using a community room at my local city hall. My particular experience notwithstanding, there’s no reason this couldn’t be effectively executed in a virtual format.  

The rules are basic. It starts with a facilitator, a person familiar with the general process of running a Socrates Café meeting. For the first meeting, the facilitator usually picks the question to be asked for the session. Recent examples from my group include “What obligations do the living have to future generations?” “Was Michelangelo always in the block of marble?” and “What should the US do for Ukraine, if anything, amidst its war with Russia?” In principle, it can be a question about anything, it just must be a question. 

Generally, the first speaker is someone lays out some context for the question to be asked, and it doesn’t have to be the facilitator. From there, participants raise their hands to speak. (Speaking is encouraged for all attendees, but not required.) This creates a spot for you in the queue tracked by the facilitator. 

Now here’s where it gets Socratic: If you have a question for the current person speaking you may ask it directly without raising your hand and waiting (doing so in a timely and courteous manner). Questions asked of the speaker help to clarify, elicit expounding, and/or poke holes in the reasoning of what the speaker has put forward. These are the key exchanges, using questions to probe and counter assertions by others. 

At the end of the session (usually two hours), the group nominates and votes to select the topic for the next planned meeting. In my experience, topics about religion or politics are frowned upon unless kept on a strictly philosophical level. 

While those are the rules laid out by one Socrates Café group in Colorado, the benefits of the methodology are why I write about it. For any topic, broad or narrowly tailored, approaching EA subjects among the EA-minded in this manner could be a great addition to the EA quiver. Need to get the juices flowing on prioritizing one subject over another? Seeking to draw brighter lines to better refine how to measure the “good” done by a specific action? Wondering if you’re grasping your Bentham as well as you should?  Socrates Café may do the trick. It’s not designed with creating revenue in mind, but contemplated as a forum for those whose draw is solely intellectual curiosity. Its few formalities are there to give discussions some coherence, but the directions taken by a Socrates Café group are driven solely by the members.

I gave some consideration to writing a proposal for the FutureFund #23 project “A constitution for the future,” but time and other commitments prevented me from doing so (see the spinoff Constitution Café). Regardless, I am confident that this approach to discussion and thinking would benefit a whole host of EA-related endeavors. So long as discussions are all done in good faith, there’s no reason that any topic would need to be off limits. For those in the Anglophone world, there’s a good chance a Socrates Café group already exists in your area. If you’re curious about more particulars, ask away!

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This seems cool.

I think people should ideally do a lot of experimentation, running a bunch of EA events in different formats and reporting back on how they seemed to go. I like something of the spirit of the Socrates cafe, and hope it gets tried a few times!

Thanks, Owen. I agree that this approach lends itself to a lot of experimentation. While the "usual" approach (often) doesn't lend itself to a final consensus at the end of a session, I think doing this with a more defined purpose for EA participants would be relatively straightforward. I have some thoughts on how to best execute it, perhaps including a survey element for participants before and after a session or sessions. If you're interested in more particulars and nuances, I would be happy to share thoughts and ideas on a call or other correspondence.

I participated in an activity of this sort some years ago. I really enjoyed the structured conversation, and working towards consensus in a group. The experience was way more intense than any other context of presentation or debate that I have been a part of otherwise. I don't know whether EA groups should use the technique, but I wanted to share from my own experience:)

hi Ryan, this is Christopher Phillips, founder of Socrates Cafe.  Thanks so much for your kind words about it.  I can always be reached at SocratesCafe@gmail.com   thanks again

A further addition to the EA quiver would be reading groups to discuss the best books related to EA. As with the Socrates Cafe, discussions  could be structured around answering a central question.

Also ripe for a survey element 

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