EA Norms in Broader Culture
I noticed about a year ago that sometimes on Slate Star Codex comment threads, people would propose bets of the form:
“If I’m right, you have to give X dollars to my charity of choice. If you’re right, I have to give X dollars to yours.”
Better yet, sometimes the bets forewent the choice part, and just declared that the loser had to give to the Against Malaria Foundation, on the assumption that locally speaking, that was the Default Charity.
I found this ludicrously exciting, in the same way that I’m seeing AMF and earning-to-give getting lip service on meme pages exciting. Because not all these commenters, or meme-enjoyers, are actively EA or EA-aligned. And yet, at least in local scopes, ideas about giving to effective charity in certain situations are becoming normal.
And sure, beware filter bubbles and all that. There’s a long way to go. And yet, seeing AMF donations in broader discourse helps me clarify the idea of win state with respect to EA ideas and broader Internet cultures. Winning isn’t getting everyone, or even most people, to explicitly agree. It’s to encode researching, evaluating, and contributing to moral good as a passively accepted norm.
This is a big part of why I’m so excited for George Howlett’s work on increasing effectiveness of workplace activism. Corporate altruism, to me, seems almost entirely based in norms. Talking to managers about more effective charity with explicit argument may work sometimes, but I haven’t witnessed it personally. But if even a few industries (I can imagine data science being one: “we give how we work: using proven methods and careful research”) adopt EA practices as norms, the effects could be enormous. And I can imagine that state of affairs actually obtaining, much as it has in other communities I’ve witnessed.
EA Global Boston was very good, and it feels like a really exciting time to be involved.