[jasonwatkinspdx]

I've said this in most threads on this topic but will keep repeating it: EA functionally matches the exact same patterns I grew up around among evangelical extremists. It's an all purpose justification of moral righteousness, performed with false humility.

[zozbot234]

EA is about applying well-established social science to the problem of getting the most bang for the buck in charity. There's nothing else to it, and it's not "extremist" unless you hold that charity itself is extremist.

[tptacek]

That's sort of begging the argument proposed upthread. This is the standard line about EA, but it has clearly led some people --- people important to the movement, to "institutional" EA --- to some weird, dark places. And those dark ideas are in a sense dicta to parts of the wider EA community.

[zozbot234]

"EA" didn't do this. The EA-pursuing community in particular places may well be deeply flawed in all sorts of ways, but this has no bearing on the validity of EA principles more broadly.

[tptacek]

Then, if it helps you, just mentally substitute "EA-pursuing community" for "EA" in these discussions.

[onos]

I would accept the theme if you used “many of those claiming to follow EA”. But you don’t, you say “EA”. It’s on you to make your statements accurate.

[tptacek]

You can't have a curious conversation when you've committed yourself to not understanding the points other people are making.

[humanistbot]

And Jesus Christ didn't personally cause a lot of wars, the Jesus Christ fanclubs did that....

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Yes, exactly. I have a purely secular worldview as an adult, but there are good things worth paying attention to in the bible, at least in the new testament. What's different about the evangelical extremists I grew up around is this complex of mutually buttressing beliefs/behaviors like biblical literalism, believing in direct communication of absolute truth from the holy spirit, that prayer can cause supernatural miracles, etc.

With EA I'd cite longtermerism, the rhetoric around coin flips and risk, and in particular how all of this becomes a normative standard: if you aren't maximizing your earning potential you are a moral failure!

As I said, many of these beliefs and behaviors functionally serve to give the believer an all purpose source of moral righteousness. No one has a problem with Jesus saying you should not just do no harm but have a burden to help those in need. The problem comes exactly in that institutionalization that adopts this as a banner while behaving in the complete opposite way in practice.

[polygamous_bat]

And some may claim Christianity is about loving your neighbor and following the love of Jesus all the way heaven... Yet you will see people camped outside planned parenthoods screaming and cursing at other humans who are 100% Christians by their own definition.

Seems like you're falling for the exact fallacy I pointed out upthread.

[zozbot234]

> Yet you will see people camped outside planned parenthoods screaming and cursing

These people think Planned Parenthood is literally murdering babies. You're free to politely disagree with that characterization of course, but it only takes a tiny bit of empathy to understand what the screaming and cursing is all about.

[ben_w]

So far as I can see, the important difference between EA and Christianity, is that all the EA types are looking at everything EA is doing wrong and asking themselves how to make it less wrong.

Perhaps early Christianity was like that too, before it became mandatory, but it’s certainly not what I remember from my Catholic childhood.

[polygamous_bat]

> the important difference between EA and Christianity, is that all the EA types are looking at everything EA is doing wrong and asking themselves how to make it less wrong.

Are they? Because I am meeting a lot of (admittedly self proclaimed) EAs that are busy evangelizing about what "True EA" is and is not, and how SBF was never "True EA". Maybe they are contemplating a lot in their free time, but on a broad stroke it looks like attempting to avoid responsibility to me.

[ben_w]

Fair enough; Nae True Scotsman is always annoying, and big-R Rationalists aren’t any better at avoiding such fallacies than anyone else (to their credit, the ones I pay attention to are also annoyed by this).

What I’m seeing is mostly online rather than in person meetings; these discussions are “could we have spotted this nonsense sooner?” (general consensus: “probably not, his investors and auditors didn’t and that’s not our skillset”), and “hang on, wasn’t this[0] a red flag?” (which generally gets left unresolved as they get nerd-sniped on the actual discussion rather than staying focused on if it should’ve been a warning sign).

[0] https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/mdbSL9o8H2Z5mjKaj/...

[cwillu]

This is why I really dislike identifying with the name of a movement or idea or whatever. It doesn't matter how much the term was just a convenient label for a bunch of ideas, labels gain lives of their own and what they Really Mean™ becomes uncontrollable and inconsistent and eventually incoherent.

[haberman]

A key part of religious extremism is trying to impose one's own morality on others. Where are the effective altruists trying to control the actions of others in the name of EA?

[polygamous_bat]

Another key part of religious extremism is offering indemnity for henious acts, like crusades or honor killings. I have definitely seen high priests of "radical EA" acting similarly.