Hide table of contents

I noticed that, over the past few years, I have collected a number of tips and introspective thoughts on how best to talk about effective altruism.

I have written this up and I posted the list of tips below. I hope this is helpful to someone. I have also posted a slightly longer article inclduing these tips on the EA Wiki at: http://effective-altruism.wikia.com/wiki/Talking_about_effective_altruism

There is also an EA pitch guide now on the Wiki at: http://effective-altruism.wikia.com/wiki/The_EA_Pitch_Guide.

–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-

Tips on talking about effective altruism


Lead by example

Actions speak louder than words. The best way of influencing those around you is when they can see that you are donating time and money to a cause you believe in passionately – and that doing so is making the world a better place.

 

Provide a personal story

If you can tie in your own personal story of exploration of these ideas into the narrative. How did you come across EA ideas? What inspired you? What things do you do? What changed you? Etc.

If you cannot provide your own story a story of a friend will work too. Eg: “my friend K was really nervous about giving 10% but then . . .”

 

Show people how being EA can help them achieve their own goals

For example many people want to make the world better. The EA community can help them better achieve this goal. It can also help with many other common goals: provide friends / meaning / volunteering opportunities / happiness / a sense of superiority ;-p / etc.  

 

Do not let people be on the defensive

Agree with the person you are talking to as much as you honestly can. If they express a belief agree it is a valid belief and then work within that framework. Eg: “yes that makes sense as a reason to prioritise our community first, but for me personally when I realise how much good even tiny amount of donations to the developing world can . . . .” 

Do not say “no you are wrong” unless it is a very clear factual inaccuracy where you are sure you have strong evidence that will make them update their views. Even then try to soften it with a phrase like “that is a common myth actually there is current consensus is . . .”

It can be useful to begin introducing EA with a really basic uncontroversial definition that no one can reasonably disagree with, something like: "Effective Altruism is applying evidence, reason and rationality to the goal of making the world a better place."

 

Customise

How exactly we should present stuff needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Stop and think: 'here is a new person, how best to present EA ideas to them, what do I know about them'. 

 

Do not be moralising

Ideally try to avoid telling people that they are obliged to do any particular action. Especially try not to tell people that what they are currently doing is bad.

More generally you should shy away from subjective claims where you are unsure if the other person will agree with you. Such as “x is immoral” or “rap is the best music” etc.

 

Be confident and be a good speaker

All the tips here are focused on talking about EA to people. Being a good communicator in general would also help. Perhaps go do some general research into how to be a good speaker.

 


Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Be confident and be a good speaker

Seconded. One of the best changes I made to my pitch for Harvard EA was to stop sounding slightly embarrassed about effective altruism. It instantly changed the dynamic of the conversation from "are you going to be one of the 3 people who finds this weird idea interesting?" to "Hey! Check out this awesome thing you can do!"

What does the beginning of your pitch sound like?

If it helps a good start for me is "So effective altruism is really awesome, basically it means applying evidence and reason and the scientific method and so on to the goal of doing good in the world. Makes sense right? So a really simple example of this is doing research to assess charities to . . ."

You reminded me that I actually already wrote this up on my blog. I've linked to it from the parent comment as well.

"Ideally try to avoid telling people that they are obliged to do any particular action. Especially try not to tell people that what they are currently doing is bad."

A few of my non-EA friends have had similar experiences talking with EAs which backs this up. The most common is some variant of

"Have you considered doing something more effective than what you're doing now."

There may well be good ways and times to ask this question - but it's probably one for a close friend with a great deal of trust, not someone you just met.

Although it was only on the blogging carnival last month, each of us writing up our own 'EA origin stories' seems like good practice for personalizing how we introduce others to effective altruism. I like this.

Actions speak louder than words. The best way of influencing those around you is when they can see that you are donating time and money to a cause you believe in passionately – and that doing so is making the world a better place.

This varies from person to person. If someone is doing direct research or outreach on the cause they believe holds the most promise for improving the world, it seems talking about it would really shine through to other people in ways inspiring them. Effective altruism emphasizes earning to give. For the rest of us "just" donating money, it doesn't seem as action-packed. Also, earning to give is abstract.

I realized the best thing I could do was work as an actuary/electrician/dentist, and donate some of that money.

is not as exciting as

I'm organizing conferences on solving global problems by combining many sciences to inform international policy and research agendas.

Leading by example doesn't seem so easy when you look like you're doing the same desk job as everyone else. What do you suggest in this case?

Suggestions:

  • The simplest thing to do is be public about your donations. Tell people / post on facebook about how much you donate and where it goes.
  • If you socialise with or engage with or help run a local EA group or community then this too helps.
  • Also if you have an active interest in EA topics such as charity evaluation research or international development then this will come up in conversation

Thanks, those sound like good suggestions!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal