[Eddy_Viscosity2]

> Subtract billionaire activity from your perception of EA attitude

But that's the problem, that is my entire perception of EA. I see regular altruism where, like in the shopping example I gave above, wanting to be effective is already intrinsic. Doing things like giving people information that some forms of giving are better than others is just great. No issues there at all, but again I see that as a part of plain old regular altruism.

Then there is Effective Altruism (tm) which is the billionaire version that I see as performative and corrupt. Even when it helps people, this seems to be incidental rather that the main goal which appears to be marketing the EA premise for self promotion and back patting.

[estearum]

Obviously EA has a perception problem, but I have to admit it’s a little odd hearing someone just say that they know their perception is probably inaccurate and yet they choose to believe and propagate it regardless.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

If it helps, instead of thinking of it as a perception problem, maybe think of it as a language problem. There are (at least) two versions of EA. One of them has good intentions and the other doesn't. But they are both called EA, so its not that people are perceiving incorrectly, its that they hear the term and associate it with one of those two versions. I tried to disambiguate by referring the one just regular altruism and other by the co-opted name. EA has been negatively branded and its very hard to come back from that association.

[estearum]

But neither is “regular altruism.”

And no, it’s not really. This negative branding mostly exists among people who actually will admit to knowing it’s not even accurate to them.

[Joeboy]

To be fair trying to be fair and accurate is pretty thankless.

[estearum]

Here's another version:

"A lot of people think that EA is some hifalutin, condescending endeavor and billionaire utilitarians hijack its ideology to justify extreme greed (and sometimes fraud!), but in reality, EA is simply the imperative (accessible to anyone) to direct their altruistic efforts toward what will actually do the most good for the causes they care about. This is in contrast to the most people's default mode of relying on marketing, locality, vibes, or personal emotional satisfaction to guide their generosity."

See? Fair and accurate, and without propagating things I know or suspect to be untrue!

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

This is perfectly fine definition, if you change the "but in reality" to "and". Like it or not, EA means both of these things simultaneously. So its not that if someone uses one definition that they are wrong, only that they are using that definition. Language is like that. There is no official definition, its whatever people on mass decide to use and sometimes there is a split vote.

[estearum]

“My perception is that red headed people have vulgar and un-funny humor”

Why so?

“Well Kathy Griffin and Carrot Top fit the bill”

Do you think that is a fair characterization of red headed people in general?

“Not really, but I’m allowed to say so anyway.”

…

Sure I guess?

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I see your point, but if the only red-headed people ever saw was Kathy Griffin and Carrot Top and they were unfunny to them, and also Kathy and Carrot Top were loudly and sincerely proclaiming that they were funny, and that they were funnier than any other comedians, and that it was because they were red headed. How irrational is that perception?