I’ve wondered whether there might be high expected value for creating an organization … dedicated to figuring out how to sell EA charities effectively.
Almost certainly yes. I mean, it if helps to create more effective altruists than it has members, it already is a net benefit. Actually, its members don’t even have to be effective altruists, only the ones who make decisions (to make sure that the organization remains promoting effective altruism and that it uses a correct definition). So the best structure would be to have a group of effective altruists as supervisors, a few employees selected by their expertise (they don’t even have to be altruists of any kind), and a group of volunteers (e.g. students who want to be altruists, but don’t have any significant income yet; again it’s not necessary for them to be effective altruists).
Meta-charities like GiveWell are a multiplier, in the sense that they help altruists to donate their money to higher-impact causes instead of lower-impact causes. But if we had dozen of GiveWell’s, they would not multiply each other; they wouldn’t even add to each other, because at the end they would help to redirect the same amounts of money. But an organization promoting effective altruism and creating new effective altruists would be another multiplier.
There seems to be an understanding that donating to EA charities tends to provide fewer warm-fuzzies than giving to their (most successful) non-EA counterparts
This could be changed by promoting efficient altruism, creating local meetups of efficient altruists, etc. It’s not only to find new altruists, but to give some social bonus (= warm fuzzies) to both existing and the new ones.
This could be changed by promoting efficient altruism, creating local meetups of efficient altruists, etc. It’s not only to find new altruists, but to give some social bonus (= warm fuzzies) to both existing and the new ones.
There’s a significant difference between selling effective altruism to non-EAs and selling a specific effective charity to non-EAs. I suspect that the former is both more valuable (in the long term) and more difficult. Upping the warm-fuzzies seems to me like it would work toward both (as well as EA retention, although I know of no significant existing problem with that), which is why I find it surprising that there’s not more work being done there (that I’m aware of).
I think we need to be very careful to avoid saying anything along the lines of “Warm-fuzzies? We don’t need no warm-fuzzies!” Most people do seem to need them, if they’re going to keep giving. And it makes us look pretentious to the uninitiated. (To be clear, I’m not implying you’ve said anything to indicate you do this or disagree—but it occasionally makes its way into public conversations about effective altruism and seems noteworthy.)
Effective altruists who want to maximize their total donations over lifetime—as opposed to signal the highest virtue today, and then risk burning out tomorrow—should accept the warm fuzzies at least when they come reasonably cheap, and not role-play a Straw Vulcan Mother Theresa.
“If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
Meeting with people who share the same values, assuming you don’t have to literally travel far, gives in my opinion a lot of cheap warm fuzzies. And could be used to convert new people. Also networking can help to increase one’s income so they can donate more.
Maybe someone already thought about this, but if they didn’t… if you have at least five effective altruists in your area, you should arrange a meetup once in a month, preferably in a place where other people can join you and talk with you (e.g. on a local campus).
But I consider it possible that a marketing campaign designed by professionals, could have even greater impact. Still, if the campaign attracts a few new people, the regular meetups may help them stay. Also they would have a place they could bring their friends to talk with the more experienced effective altruists.
(Disclosure: I am not an effective altruist. I just enjoy telling other people what they should do. That does not make me automatically wrong, although it makes it more likely that I missed some important aspect of the situation. Maybe someone already has done all my suggestions that make sense.)
Almost certainly yes. I mean, it if helps to create more effective altruists than it has members, it already is a net benefit. Actually, its members don’t even have to be effective altruists, only the ones who make decisions (to make sure that the organization remains promoting effective altruism and that it uses a correct definition). So the best structure would be to have a group of effective altruists as supervisors, a few employees selected by their expertise (they don’t even have to be altruists of any kind), and a group of volunteers (e.g. students who want to be altruists, but don’t have any significant income yet; again it’s not necessary for them to be effective altruists).
Meta-charities like GiveWell are a multiplier, in the sense that they help altruists to donate their money to higher-impact causes instead of lower-impact causes. But if we had dozen of GiveWell’s, they would not multiply each other; they wouldn’t even add to each other, because at the end they would help to redirect the same amounts of money. But an organization promoting effective altruism and creating new effective altruists would be another multiplier.
This could be changed by promoting efficient altruism, creating local meetups of efficient altruists, etc. It’s not only to find new altruists, but to give some social bonus (= warm fuzzies) to both existing and the new ones.
So it seems to me this should be a high priority.
There’s a significant difference between selling effective altruism to non-EAs and selling a specific effective charity to non-EAs. I suspect that the former is both more valuable (in the long term) and more difficult. Upping the warm-fuzzies seems to me like it would work toward both (as well as EA retention, although I know of no significant existing problem with that), which is why I find it surprising that there’s not more work being done there (that I’m aware of).
I think we need to be very careful to avoid saying anything along the lines of “Warm-fuzzies? We don’t need no warm-fuzzies!” Most people do seem to need them, if they’re going to keep giving. And it makes us look pretentious to the uninitiated. (To be clear, I’m not implying you’ve said anything to indicate you do this or disagree—but it occasionally makes its way into public conversations about effective altruism and seems noteworthy.)
Effective altruists who want to maximize their total donations over lifetime—as opposed to signal the highest virtue today, and then risk burning out tomorrow—should accept the warm fuzzies at least when they come reasonably cheap, and not role-play a Straw Vulcan Mother Theresa.
“If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
Meeting with people who share the same values, assuming you don’t have to literally travel far, gives in my opinion a lot of cheap warm fuzzies. And could be used to convert new people. Also networking can help to increase one’s income so they can donate more.
Maybe someone already thought about this, but if they didn’t… if you have at least five effective altruists in your area, you should arrange a meetup once in a month, preferably in a place where other people can join you and talk with you (e.g. on a local campus).
But I consider it possible that a marketing campaign designed by professionals, could have even greater impact. Still, if the campaign attracts a few new people, the regular meetups may help them stay. Also they would have a place they could bring their friends to talk with the more experienced effective altruists.
(Disclosure: I am not an effective altruist. I just enjoy telling other people what they should do. That does not make me automatically wrong, although it makes it more likely that I missed some important aspect of the situation. Maybe someone already has done all my suggestions that make sense.)