Before the SBF story broke I had EA explained to me by a family member who had some involvement in it. Along with admiration, I felt some disquiet which I found difficult to put into words. You have done it here so well Elizabeth. Indeed, ‘Control .... is not the same thing as wisdom. It makes wisdom harder’. Thank you.
Your comment that people generally and EAs in particular have an urge to design out uncertainty is fascinating. I think my experience of the EA community over the last 10 years or so has been seeing it move to be more willing to take bets on more uncertain proposals as long as the upside pay-off is big enough. Perhaps particularly in cause areas outside of global health and development where the evidence base doesn't allow much certainty anyway.
To me there is something that feels honouring to Jesus in gathering and evaluating as much information/data as possible when making decisions around which organisations to give to (or careers to pursue) and using that to try and make the decisions that help as many of those who God deeply cares for in the most substantive ways. Even if this involves things feeling a bit heavy or cold and calculating, as I guess the potential beneficiaries deserve it, even if it feels stodgier to me. However, still acknowledging that some things we'll have to assess are not as apt for quantified analysis and so we'll have to use some softer approaches of evaluating whether they're good bets e.g. evaluating the soundness of a theory of change, or (as you suggest) the character/skills of the project's leaders. Though lots of my Christian friends still find my views on all of this controversial!
Thank you, Elizabeth. Waiting and unknowing are so challenging for those of us who have been taught to believe that we alone are responsible for ourselves. We are not!
Sounds like if any of us hear you ranting, we need to tell you to go deeper, don't stop but go farther, because what you unearthed by doing so here is fantastic, Elizabeth.
-- Even if I think that your comments strikes a very important chord, it is slightly off the mark in characterizing EA as it exists. EA as it exists is precisely about *embracing* uncertainty (for example, in promoting unconditional cash transfers and handing over control from "donor" to "recipient" or, for example, in being willing to go for projects that have a very high chance of failing as long as the small-probability upside looks high enough). However, in doing so EAs try very hard to distinguish which (possibly highly) uncertain projects to pursue or not. In doing so, they are trying to control the situation.
-- "with enough evidence and data we can be certain we are Good People": I think that's precisely opposite to the EA mindset. One of the urges behind EA is precisely to do away with the constant focus on the "donor" side and whether "we [the donors] are good people". The EA ethos is to turn fully to the "recipient" side and ask what makes *their* life go well and gives *them* autonomy.
"I have learned to be suspicious of the urge, when it does come, the delicious rush of self-righteousness. It usually means I have an unexamined opinion, that I want people to think I’m clever, and that I am in the mood to win. None of these things are good for my soul."
Thank you for letting me know that I am not the only one who does this!!! ♥️🤣❤️🩹
Before the SBF story broke I had EA explained to me by a family member who had some involvement in it. Along with admiration, I felt some disquiet which I found difficult to put into words. You have done it here so well Elizabeth. Indeed, ‘Control .... is not the same thing as wisdom. It makes wisdom harder’. Thank you.
Thanks for the thoughtful reflections!
Your comment that people generally and EAs in particular have an urge to design out uncertainty is fascinating. I think my experience of the EA community over the last 10 years or so has been seeing it move to be more willing to take bets on more uncertain proposals as long as the upside pay-off is big enough. Perhaps particularly in cause areas outside of global health and development where the evidence base doesn't allow much certainty anyway.
To me there is something that feels honouring to Jesus in gathering and evaluating as much information/data as possible when making decisions around which organisations to give to (or careers to pursue) and using that to try and make the decisions that help as many of those who God deeply cares for in the most substantive ways. Even if this involves things feeling a bit heavy or cold and calculating, as I guess the potential beneficiaries deserve it, even if it feels stodgier to me. However, still acknowledging that some things we'll have to assess are not as apt for quantified analysis and so we'll have to use some softer approaches of evaluating whether they're good bets e.g. evaluating the soundness of a theory of change, or (as you suggest) the character/skills of the project's leaders. Though lots of my Christian friends still find my views on all of this controversial!
Thank you, Elizabeth. Waiting and unknowing are so challenging for those of us who have been taught to believe that we alone are responsible for ourselves. We are not!
Sounds like if any of us hear you ranting, we need to tell you to go deeper, don't stop but go farther, because what you unearthed by doing so here is fantastic, Elizabeth.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece!
I think highlighting the urge for control is so spot-on. I've written a chapter (the only recent, comprehensive paper) on faith and EA. While it is very positive overall, this was exactly the biggest criticism I came up with as well (see https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748925361-47/effective-altruism-as-egyptian-gold-for-christians?page=23)
Two remarks:
-- Even if I think that your comments strikes a very important chord, it is slightly off the mark in characterizing EA as it exists. EA as it exists is precisely about *embracing* uncertainty (for example, in promoting unconditional cash transfers and handing over control from "donor" to "recipient" or, for example, in being willing to go for projects that have a very high chance of failing as long as the small-probability upside looks high enough). However, in doing so EAs try very hard to distinguish which (possibly highly) uncertain projects to pursue or not. In doing so, they are trying to control the situation.
-- "with enough evidence and data we can be certain we are Good People": I think that's precisely opposite to the EA mindset. One of the urges behind EA is precisely to do away with the constant focus on the "donor" side and whether "we [the donors] are good people". The EA ethos is to turn fully to the "recipient" side and ask what makes *their* life go well and gives *them* autonomy.
Helpful thanks
"I have learned to be suspicious of the urge, when it does come, the delicious rush of self-righteousness. It usually means I have an unexamined opinion, that I want people to think I’m clever, and that I am in the mood to win. None of these things are good for my soul."
Thank you for letting me know that I am not the only one who does this!!! ♥️🤣❤️🩹