Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
mariushobbhahn5
0
0

Fair, I'll just remove the first sentence. It's too confusing. 

Reply
See in context
by mariushobbhahn
2 min read 8

12

Building effective altruismCommunityNetwork building
Frontpage

EDIT: Originally, the post was getting very mixed feedback and I was worried that the neoliberal movement =/= neoliberalism distinction was too confusing. Thus, I thought it might be best to move the post back to drafts to not waste the reader's time.  Then I got some messages from people who want to read it. So I made it public again. Deal with this information as you please. 
 

There are already some ties between the neoliberal movement (not to be confused with neoliberalism the ideology) and EA. For example, Jeremiah Johnson (host of the neoliberal podcast & director/founder of the neoliberal project), has given an AMA on the EA forum and has promoted GiveWell on the podcast. I think the overlap between the movements is already substantial. Both movements want to make the world better by using science and rational thinking even if their methodologies are slightly different. Both movements have substantial overlap in their beliefs (I would, for example, expect that most EAs agree with most of “What neoliberals believe in”). 

However, I think the level of cooperation should be higher than it currently is. I think the movements should stay two separate movements and not merge but they could use their comparative advantages in lots of positive-sum cooperations. To state it in more intuitive terms, I think most EAs should know what the Neoliberal movement stands for and vice versa. 

There are also more practical reasons for cooperation. The neoliberal movement is probably larger than EA but EAs might have more influence on politics and philanthropy. The Neoliberal movement has figured out promotion on Twitter & Reddit much better than EA but EAs have better talent-to-job pipelines.

(All of the things I'm saying are also true for progress studies btw, they are just less organized than EA and the Neoliberal movement AFAIK.)

Here are some ideas for cooperation. Feel free to add more.

  • Podcasts: Rob Wiblin has already featured on the Neoliberal podcast but I think inviting Jeremiah Johnson on the 80K podcast would make for a fun episode. Also, both movements have grown a lot in the last 2 years, so I’d be up for an updated version of the 2019 podcast as well.
  • Local chapters: If a city has both an EA chapter and a neoliberal chapter they could cooperate. The neoliberals invite the EAs for an intro talk and vice versa. This might sound like a zero-sum game since people have limited time but I think it’s mostly positive-sum. In Tübingen, we have cooperated in a similar way with the debate club, and afterward, multiple people came to the debating and EA meetings.
  • Movement building: Obviously, both movements have been doing quite well and are growing fast. However, there are likely things we could learn from each other. If you haven’t done so already, some CEA folks (or other movement builders) might want to meet with the people running the neoliberal project and talk about their experiences. Even a 60-minute meeting could already have high value.
  • Conferences: Inviting some neoliberals, especially those who work in politics, to EAG could give some interesting perspectives. If neoliberals have conferences like EAG, they could invite some EAs to talk about politics, movement building, etc. as well.
  • Social media: I think there are some EAs who are really good at the Twitter game but we still have a lot to learn from the Neoliberal movement.

I'd be interested in further ideas and whether you like the idea overall. 

 

If you want to be informed about new blog posts, follow me on Twitter.


 

12

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments8


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Stefan_Schubert25
0
0

I think that the term "neoliberalism" is used in a number of different ways in a way that can be confusing.

The post "What Neoliberals Believe" post that you link to says that:

The foundation of neoliberalism’s economic beliefs is a system that promotes growth and nurtures entrepreneurship, while also providing a safety net that shares those gains with everyone.

My bold.

You also link to Vaughan's post on the rise of the neoliberals, which covers thinkers like Milton Friedman, Fredrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises. My sense is that these thinkers aren't always or even commonly associated with the passage in bold.

I think there's been a big debate within neoliberal circles about the usage of this term. I don't know the details of that, nor what the exact views of different historical thinkers were. But that might not matter enormously for our purposes. 

What I do think is important is to specify what meaning of neoliberalism one has in mind when one says that we should cooperate with the neoliberals. And I take it that you mean specifically the Neoliberal Project and associated thinkers. I think that's a subset of the thinkers that are sometimes or often called "neoliberals" in ordinary discourse.

Reply
mariushobbhahn3
0
0

Fair point. Just to clarify, my post is mostly about the NEOLIBERAL PROJECT and not about the neoliberal thinkers. 

Reply
Stefan_Schubert7
0
0

Well but you start your post with the reference to Vaughan's post about the rise of the neoliberals, and they were not part of the modern neoliberal project (which is much more recent). That may lead people to interpret you as talking about something wider than the modern neoliberal project in particular.

Reply
mariushobbhahn5
0
0

Fair, I'll just remove the first sentence. It's too confusing. 

Reply
mariushobbhahn3
0
0

Thanks for pointing that out. Now updated!

Reply
Jeroen Willems🔸15
0
0

I personally disagree. I think EA should try appeal to many people across the political spectrum, from socialists to libertarians. Aiming to be apolitical (in most cases) is required for this. Neoliberalism, while I'm personally sympathetic to it, has a very negative name across the political spectrum so linking EA with it would probably hurt the EA brand a lot. Collaborating is possible insofar it's just asking each other for advice behind the scenes. I don't think people should be secret about liking neoliberalism either, I think the current state of overlap is around where it should be.

Reply
Ruben Dieleman 🔸7
0
0

Could you elaborate more on this "substantial overlap in beliefs" between EAs and neoliberals?

Reply
mariushobbhahn3
0
0

I think most EAs would agree with most of the claims made in the "what neoliberals believe in" post. Furthermore, the topics that are discussed on the neoliberal podcast often align with the broader political beliefs of EAs, e.g. global free trade is good, people should be allowed to make free choices as long as they don't harm others, one should look at science and history to make decisions, large problems should be prioritized, etc. 

There is a chance that this is just my EA bubble. Let me know if you have further questions. 

Reply
More from mariushobbhahn
158
Announcing Apollo Research
mariushobbhahn
·
5
5
117
There should be more AI safety orgs
mariushobbhahn
·
20
20
183
Announcing Epoch: A research organization investigating the road to Transformative AI
5 authors
· · 3m read
11
11
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