All of cdc482's Comments + Replies

Just my opinion. I'd like to see more EA's working together. For example, at a couple events there were discussion of helping people pursue higher paying jobs in software development. I met another EA who invests money for EAs at a rate significantly higher than the market without taking fees.

Im an EA. I've donated over 50% of my income for over 3 years, and I've been active volunteering (informally and formally) for over 8 years. I rarely felt comfortable at an EA event or meetup.

Ive met a handful of people who donate 10%, and a handful of people who do some volunteer work. I've also met a bunch of people I suspect of being more interested in philosophy and socializing than altruism. EA community building is a huge disappointment.

There is huge potential in EAs working together--the sum of the wholes are greater than the sum of the parts. But after 3 years of trying, I'm about ready to give up.

"Lets poll EAG attendees to see how EAs feel about EA" -no statistician ever

I think is a great opportunity for the information we know on acting well to be formalized into recommendations. For example, I believe the consensus is that buying organic is not particularly good for environment while going veg has a large measurable effect. There are other relatively small changes you can make to your home and place of employment like reducing waste and planting trees. Any have input?

Regarding the second quote, pretend you're debating between a job you love and a job that pays double. The quote is saying that if you really love the job, you may wind up being paid comparably anyway, because people who are passionate about their work tend to be the best, and tend to be paid way more than average.

Id like to see a similar post about productive group events.

This rings true for the meetup I attend.

(Homogenous groups miss out on talent, experience, and information held by those who aren’t in the limited social group they recruit from. We end up with lopsided skill sets and the same conversations again and again.)

If I remember correctly, participants were read stories and then asked to recall sad details. Not trying to be a downer, but the study's design is poorly related to PTSD.

EA dark humor.

Good point, the best strategy will vary based on income. I guess getting above that $6,500 is the first hurdle.

The December and January donation idea is a great solution. Also, touche'. This wouldn't apply to people itemizing due to other deductions like a mortgage.

Makes sense. Ethics---like spirituality---seems far too complicated too have a simple set of rules.

This is really cool work you're doing! How much money has been donated more effectively as a result? I bet GiveWell and Open Phil would be interested in seeing the evidence generated as a result of your recommendation.

Unrelated and less interesting, I remember hearing a few years ago that the lack of benefits from providing safe drinking water (reduction in illness from water-born bacteria) was not due to a lack of technological solutions. In fact, the technology exists and is inexpensive to supply. However, there are societal and cultural difficulties in ... (read more)

Have you shared this with GiveWell or Open Phil team? Especially considering that depression has such a negative impact on DALYs or QALYs (whichever you prefer), I think much of this research could be done outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

Also, where did you find the information regarding propranolol for PTSD? I remember reading about a couple studies done in Canada a couple years back that seemed promising, but concluded there was a lot more testing to be done.

I'm surprised how personally you took that. I was just speaking generally, though you did say it better.

I agree that diminishing returns are hit very quickly when the focus is on effective "donating." I am interested in skills training, and I have proposed a group therapy-like format, where EAs discuss their own experiences with altruism and effectiveness--including complications/issues, success stories, and even promoting altruistic qualities in other aspects of life.

For example, I think we could learn a lot from the officer in the video below--to see through all the divisive boundaries of the current system and do the best you can in the current ... (read more)

EA is an evolving movement, but the reasons for prioritizing violence and poor governance in the developing world seem weak. It's certainly altruistic and the amount of suffering it addresses is enormous. However, the world is in such a sad state of affairs, that I don't think such a complex and unexplored will compete with charities addressing basic needs like alleviating poverty or even OpenPhil's current agenda of prison reform and factory farm suffering. That said, you could start the exploring. Isn't that how the other causes became mainstream within the EA movement?

I had fun talking with you, so I googled your username. :O

Thank you for all the inspirational work you do for EA! You're a real-life superhero! I feel like a little kid meeting Batman. I can't believe you took the time to talk to me!

Touche'. I concede, but I just want to reiterate that fiction "can and often does involve revealing important truths," so that I am not haunted by the ghost of Joseph Campbell.

I didn't realize before, but this is actually most interesting to me now that multiple people have challenged the OP. In other words, I agree with the point a few people have made that few active EAs would define EA so narrowly. I must have misconstrued something somewhere.

Admittedly, I know very little about philanthropists, but I imagine they want to change the world to a common degree. Their intentions are pure, but their motivation is minimal. This is a guess, but Warren Buffet stated that the opportunity cost for spending his money elsewhere is extrem... (read more)

I think I understand your point. Opiates have a lot of negative connotations. Maybe a nervous system whose pleasure sensors are constantly triggered is a better example. I should have said that I am biased by the fact that I live in an environment where this isn't possible. You explained it more simply.

Well-being is very tricky to define, isn't it? I like it a lot more than 'maximizing happiness' or 'minimizing suffering,' which was mostly what inspired the OP. I guess we don't know enough about it to define it perfectly, but as Bill said, do we need to?

I suspect that happiness and well-being are uncorrelated. Just a guess. I am biased as I believe I have grown as a result of changes which were the result of suffering. Your point is valid though---if we could control our environment would altruists seek to create an opiate-type effect on all people? I guess it's a question that doesn't need an answer anytime soon.

I am really curious what you think about altruistic motivations v. activist motivations. I know we've talked about it before, and I expect you have a different view.

Also, I'm unsure what you meant in the last paragraph. I think we were both saying the same thing. Maybe you missed the "n't'?

Interesting. I watched 14 minutes of the video and I wonder if its possible to separate the two at all. Then again, the imaginary, opiate-using world seems to do that. It's sort of like Brave New World isn't it? Some people choose the charm of the package deal and others are content with their controlled environment. I guess you and Claire make valid points.

I actually agree with almost all your points. I agree with Jesse though. GiveWell is an integral part of EA, and GiveWell alone has been hugely beneficial simply because of how it redirected donations. Don't you think?

Interesting, though you seem a tad pessimistic in the last paragraph. If EAs claim they are motivated by altruism and reason, wouldn't defining EA based on that criteria, theoretically encourage participants to change or leave the movement?

So yes, I think you are right that we can agree on some actions that are altruistic, but whether we can explain WHY they are altruistic using utilitarian ethics is another matter entirely :)

Good point. I wonder if there is any value to being able to explain the WHY. Would all rational people suddenly start behaving altruistically? Maybe altruists would be even more effective if they were motivated by reason instead of personal experiences. At the least, it would bridge the divide between the E's and the A's in this movement. And I guess...it could be useful for MIRI.

Have you read The Giver? This is exactly the case they make. I tend to agree with the main character. I would rather have the beauty AND suffering as cause and effect than a world full of nothing but happiness. I'm not sure the latter is possible, but it also sounds incredibly depressing. Then again, the author was obviously biased when he wrote the story.

You (and the 5 people who agreed) are blowing my mind right now.

Based on the last paragraph, it sounds like you would support a world full of opiate users--provided there was a sustainable supply of opiates.

The first paragraph is what's blowing my mind though. When I was a baby, I'm pretty sure I would have told you that a room with toys and sweets would maximize my happiness. I guess you could argue that I'd eventually find out that it would not sustain my long term happiness, but I really do think some amount of suffering ensures happiness in the future... (read more)

Thanks Will. I also prefer the latter definition.

I'm hopeful that the few times I've heard "minimize/reduce suffering" were out of context or misconstrued (or was said by lesser-known EAs than I thought).

Thanks Julia.

I'm still not satisfied with the addition of 'maximize happiness.' I suspect altruism is more than even that--though the word 'well-being' is a step towards compromise.

I can't speak for other EAs, but I suspect altruists generally have more in common with activists than they do with philanthropists. The former also rejects social norms and seeks to change the world, while the latter is generally accepted within their social circles because they have so much excessive wealth.

Activists are motivated to change the world based on things they disl... (read more)

Considering that you want to include typical members, I highly recommend Jorge Lugo.

Seems like the guideline--be honest, applies here. Using extreme representations to mislead others would have blowback. Not to mention that the "savior," mentality it enforces is harmful to donors.

I think this is a great idea. Have you interviewed Jorge Lugo, Tom Ash, Eva Vivalt?

I've donated over $115,000 (all matched by various corporate foundations) 99% vegan for 5 years tutored urban youth for 2 years volunteered 2 years at a community homeless shelter secured food donations from multiple vendors for the homeless through a service organization at school: promoted food conservation, placed donation canisters in campus eateries, delivered food donations of surplus dining dollars to local food bank, planted trees, lobbied fraternities to support better charities, rented used graduation gowns, donating profits to charity, and introduced composting at a campus eatery.