This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm sure there are charities, including EA charities, that are better than the "average" charity along the relevant axis, sure.
But according to your own link, the managing director of GiveDirectly pulls down almost $500,000 per year. That's a hell of a grift, and perfectly analogous to my university consultant example. I'm sure the managing director has the relevant expertise, and probably is directly responsible for a healthy chunk of charitable cash transfers that would otherwise have gone elsewhere (or nowhere). But no one--absolutely no one--is doing controlled experiments in which they determine whether that $500,000 actually makes a difference, or whether there are cheaper alternatives with similar (or better) results. Personally, I know several very competent administrators who are happy to make $100,000 managing sums similar to those laid out by GiveDirectly.
Charity in America is Big Business(TM), and even EA is no clear exception.
I admit that there was no A/B test to figure out if this guy should be paid 450k or 500k or 550k.
However, is anyone actually doing the math on how much grant consultants increase grants received? I kind of doubt it. I suspect that those guys have some marketing and the university spends money on them because they have to do something, and everyone sits through the info session because they have to.
At least with EA there is at least some external validity. The money goes in, and 95 cents on the dollar goes out. Autists are working around the clock to see if you really are as effective as you claim. Ironically, this means EA charities operate more like a business than your average grants consultant, because they've got people keeping an eye on their bottom line and the business doesn't exist just to enrich the guy who runs it (unlike the grant consultant). They have to actually deliver shareholder value, where the shareholders are the recipients and the donors.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is, yes, charity is big business, and that's a good thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link