Effectiveness is to EA what Democracy is to the DPRK. Just part of the name. Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.
> Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.
That's what makes me uneasy about (the little I know of) EA.
Altruism can and does stand alone as a simple human concept (or meme, expressed in English). 'Effective' has got nothing to do with it. On its own, altruism is binary. You either give a thought to the well-being of your fellow man, or you don't. You either concern yourself with the world, or stay as self-centered as you were when you were screaming for attention from the center of your crib.
Adding the word 'effective' is a dilution and distraction from the original bit, and transforms it into a kind of creeping featurism. It invites analysis paralysis. It exhibits premature optimization.
Start by expending a little bit of spiritual energy towards actually becoming altruistic, then we can maybe graduate to an advanced degree in pursuit of effectiveness.
Because a cynical (experienced) person might suspect that the stipulated quest for effectiveness is a semi-conscious avoidance, a delaying tactic meant to push away the pain of subsuming the Self in favor of (undeserving? incoherent? ineffective?) Other.
Harsh thought, yeah, but you'd be amazed what human beings will do to avoid actual spiritual growth.
It seems to me to be a worthy goal for a human, to be altruistic. Like becoming mindful or developing empathy or meditating on the meaning of life. The pain of being ineffective is the baptism of fire. As soon as you consider the needs of others, you realize how powerless you are, in the face of all that need out there. But still you stretch for the goal.
What if I told you that the best and most proven way to effectuate some altruistic goal was to get down on your knees and pray?
No?
Alright, then, how about I send you to Pema Chödrön[0] and invite you to become a bhodisatva, contemplating all beings and sending them love and well-wishes through simple meditative practice?
Believe it or not, both of those practices can be very effective, but their effect will be on you, as you leave the crib behind and expand and extend your ability to consider the well-being of others.
Don't worry about being effective. Just be altruistic. Anybody who invites you to be effective first is just diverting you away from your altruism.
If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off.
On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.
I'm not sure if you are or aren't making a clear distinction between "Effective Altruism" and the premise of trying to be effective with your altruism. Everybody who is altruistic tries or at least hopes to be effective with their altruism, and what exactly that means depends on their personal set of values and perspective. An animal lover who donates only to no-kill shelters for love of animals is trying to be effective with their altruism, according to their personal values and priorities. A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries, to maximize the global population because that increases the chance of another Albert Einstein being born who will make some new breakthrough which will doubtlessly have enormous benifit to society, so really the animal lover is being a selfish idiot. Most EA community members will jump off this train of logic at some point before getting to the end, then proceed to argue with each other about it. "Effective Altruism" isn't the mere premise of being effective with altruism, that's the propaganda implication of the name but in reality it's an ideology associated with an online community, with all sorts of baggage.
> A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries
It's convenient that statements like this always come out just a few sentences into a critique of EA to helpfully reveal a complete ignorance of EA.
You've evidently been exposed to a lot more contrarian handwringing about EA than to actual EA thought.
This is like someone confidently criticizing Mormons' tradition of visiting Mecca. It just makes zero sense.
I agree with most people about most things, just like most people. I think maybe you ask that because I'm not shy about disagreeing with people, when it happens that I do. I don't feel any internal pressure or desire to please the crowd.
