[hexator]

I find it to be a dangerous ideology since it can effectively be used to justify anything. I joined an EA group online (from a popular YouTube channel) and the first conversation I saw was a thread by someone advocating for eugenics. And it only got worse from there.

> A paradox of effective altruism is that by seeking to overcome individual bias through rationalism, its solutions sometimes ignore the structural bias that shapes our world.

Yes, this just about sums it up. As a movement they seem to be attracting some listless contrarians that seem entirely too willing to dig up old demons of the past.

[nullc]

> through rationalism,

When they write "rationalism" you should read "rationalization".

[chrisweekly]

Yes! It's a crucial distinction. Rationalism is about being rational / logical -- moving closer to neutrality and "truth". Whereas to rationalize something is often about masking selfish motives, making excuses, or (self-)deception -- moving away from "truth".

[XorNot]

It's a variant of how you instantly know what a government will be like depending how much democracy they put in their name.

[potato3732842]

"If a state calls itself a commonwealth you know it sucks for the common man there" or something like it is one I've heard before.

It's at least 50% right in my experience.

[mikkupikku]

Agreed. It's firmly an "ends justify the means" ideology, reliant on accurately predicting future outcomes to justify present actions. This sort of thing gives free license to any sociopath with enough creativity to spin some yarn with handwavy math about the bad outcome their malicious actions are meant to be preventing.

[Sporktacular]

It just doesn't. It's about how to make the most from altruism. It's got nothing to do with predictions. If you make enough to pay some people to work in a soup kitchen, don't quit your job to make soup. It's nothing more.