Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 619 posts

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#41

Post by civilized »

wahern wrote: post #34
civilized wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad! Distributing mosquito nets in malaria-afflicted areas saves lives on the cheap and is universally acclaimed. How better to describe this than "effective altruism"? Why do perfectly nice general descriptive terms so often become tightly bound with one small group and their whole very particular worldview?

> Distributing mosquito nets in malaria-afflicted areas saves lives on the cheap and is universally acclaimed. How better to describe this than "effective altruism"? Philanthropy? Charity? Those words fit perfectly. Does anyone sincerely set out to be ineffective in those endeavors? I can't imagine anyone who was knowingly insincere would have trouble also claiming the moniker of effective altruism. Nonetheless, I th…

Not all philanthropy and charity are the same though. It's not all aimed through rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Which is not to say everyone should do that! But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference? Quantitative altruism? Moneyball philanthropy?

Maybe you feel we don't need a word. But I find it odd, and kind of suspicious, when we insist we can't give a distinct name to something that is clearly a thing.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#42

Post by nordsieck »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #15

Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…

> Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective.

As an outsider, I feel the same way about "evidence based medicine". It'll be interesting to see, in 40 years, whether or not either moniker was earned.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#44

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #30

I used to work for one of the largest software vendors in the non-profit space worldwide and it fundamentally changed the way I look at the non-profit world. The big ones have essentially become these weird quasi-think tanks that passively influence policy or actively engage the community to achieve an often political agenda. For example, a large non-profit can't explicitly lobby congress to ban sex education in scho…

While I agree with you that non-profits can grow to a point that they become sclerotic and lost in their own bureaucracy, I'll give a contrary opinion as to why non-profits that actually want to be effective care deeply about public policy.

For example, consider a simple animal rescue non-profit. While it may on its surface just seem like "this organization should just exist to try to find homes for pets needing adoption", it's actually more helpful to look at a more fundamental question: "What causes animals to be put up for adoption in the first place." It turns out that in most states there are a host of systemic, government-caused problems that are directly responsible for the reasons why many people need to surrender their pets to shelters in the first place. So yes, the animal rescue non-profit is still in the day-to-day business of finding homes for homeless animals, I would say a good organization would actually do more to try to change the status quo and fix the root cause problem, and that often intersects with government policy.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#45

Post by chadd »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #30

I used to work for one of the largest software vendors in the non-profit space worldwide and it fundamentally changed the way I look at the non-profit world. The big ones have essentially become these weird quasi-think tanks that passively influence policy or actively engage the community to achieve an often political agenda. For example, a large non-profit can't explicitly lobby congress to ban sex education in scho…

that's an interesting top-level post... could she write about it anonymously?

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#46

Post by wahern »

civilized wrote: post #41
wahern wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Distributing mosquito nets in malaria-afflicted areas saves lives on the cheap and is universally acclaimed. How better to describe this than "effective altruism"? Philanthropy? Charity? Those words fit perfectly. Does anyone sincerely set out to be ineffective in those endeavors? I can't imagine anyone who was knowingly insincere would have trouble also claiming the moniker of effective altruism. Nonetheless, I th…

Not all philanthropy and charity are the same though. It's not all aimed through rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Which is not to say everyone should do that! But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference? Quantitative altruism? Moneyball philanthropy? Maybe you feel we don't need a word. But I find…

> But there's a difference between caring a lot about quantified impact and being guided by more qualitative considerations. What's the word to describe the difference?

Sure, if you needed a term to categorize. We can build ontologies (and identities) all day if we want. But I ask this: can you quantify the difference between a qualitative vs quantitative emphasis in charity work? Point being: I'm not sure the distinction has much substance or utility. If one's aims are merely to feel good, without any concern for concrete, identifiable impacts, that doesn't fit the definition of altruism or charity or philanthropy. And with mixed motives (as they always are), it's really only the selfless aspect that counts as any of those when we're being pedantic. Even the tax code recognizes this--something is a charitable deduction only to the extent you don't personally derive value from it, and the deduction value is (in principle) the actual value imparted.

But if being able to identify as an "effective altruist" motivates more people to perform more charity, then who am I to argue ;)

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#47

Post by paulcole »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #32

To me, SBF embodied the worst stereotypes about the Effective Altruism movement. The not-so-subtle air of I'm-smarter-than-thou, the hubris to think whatever they have thought of haven't been thought and dismissed by others (probably for good reason), and a bull-headed focus on risk and return that can be exactly quantified, to the point of ignoring other, "softer" sides of the issue. SBF isn't alone in this. In scho…

> The not-so-subtle air of I'm-smarter-than-thou, the hubris to think whatever they have thought of haven't been thought and dismissed by others (probably for good reason), and a bull-headed focus on risk and return that can be exactly quantified, to the point of ignoring other, "softer" sides of the issue.

It’s a little long for an HN tagline but it’ll do.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#48

Post by danielmarkbruce »

polygamous_bat wrote: post #32

To me, SBF embodied the worst stereotypes about the Effective Altruism movement. The not-so-subtle air of I'm-smarter-than-thou, the hubris to think whatever they have thought of haven't been thought and dismissed by others (probably for good reason), and a bull-headed focus on risk and return that can be exactly quantified, to the point of ignoring other, "softer" sides of the issue. SBF isn't alone in this. In scho…

I don't think anything he said there flies in the face of kelly. Single event, he is explicit about his utility function and why.

He just doesn't seem very good at managing risk in the real world. If you spend any time at an investment bank or similar where you do a lot of trading, there are just hundreds of "gotchas" that those institutions are aware of and manage (or they aren't and don't and go bankrupt eventually).

There are lots of fields like this in the real world, just lots of gotchas. He didn't seem to understand that. I'd bet Jane Street understands this at the org level, but the younger folks likely just see a little bit of the whole picture, and have a lot of theory.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#49

Post by MichaelCollins »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #18
armchairhacker wrote: post #10

Like most things: EA as a concept is fine. Finding the "maximal" way to improve the lives of others is great, and finding better ways to contribute than charity and volunteering is honorable. The issue is when people take it to the extreme (like someone who literally argued that a person doing mere charity or volunteer work is bad , because they are wasting time and effort that they could've spent making money and re…

Effective altruism (EA) is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". [1] Seems like a good idea, if only just to have some sort of open-system for rating charities. I suspect the issue is everything that comes around the idea, specially... people. The problem is always people :-). Perhaps a "…

The problem with EA and other utilitarian systems of thought is two-fold. Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases. Secondly, unfettered by principles other than the end justifying the means, you can easily turn those aforementioned biases into justifications for committing horrible acts. Mass murder, or evidently, theft on a massive scale.

For instance:

"The technological revolution was a disaster for the human race... so I'm going to murder a few people to draw attention to my manifesto against technology."

"Social inequality is a disaster for the majority of my countrymen, so I'm going to murder the Bourgeoisie"

"My altruism is more effective than anybody else's, so I'm going to steal everybody else's money so that I can put it to better use."

How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.

Re: The good delusion: has effective altruism broken bad?

#50

Post by [deleted] »

dchftcs wrote: post #25
hardwaregeek wrote: post #15

Maybe this is superficial, but I was put off by the name "effective altruism". By naming it such, it felt like an implicit dig that most altruism is not effective. Like oh your altruism is not that productive, but my altruism, well it's effective altruism. Especially when that notion is pushed by people who overlap with the rationalist subculture, another arrogantly named group. In general I find it concerning when t…

Your reaction is a bit absolutist. The basic premise is that if you're capable of making 500k a year in the developed world then going to Africa to volunteer to build houses is not as effective as just donating your money to charities that send people to help, or hire people yourself. What it evolved into is a bit controversial, overall they seem to be a bunch of kids who don't know what to do with the power and mone…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN