Terminology review: util = EA-scale impact; fuzzy = maybe helps one person a little and makes you feel good

I'm thinking about whether discussing EA gets you utils or just fuzzies. Consider this hypothetical post (based on a recent, real one about political donations, but I want to fictionalize the author):

Michael: ... and that's why the best use of donations is actually to county-level political races in red states, because they're the ones who actually make the decisions.

Did Michael get utils or fuzzies for this?

Well, the first thing we need to know is: was this truly the best use of Michael's time, from a util perspective?

If no, not the best use of time

"No" is easier to discuss because it leads to just a meta-level problem. It means Michael got fuzzies, but the fuzzies are helping him with self-growth, reflection, education, or helping others in the community that way (you would flip the question, was reading the post fuzzies or utils), so these are very load-bearing fuzzies for any utils.

This is important, because if I ask a question like, "should I work in finance even though I find bio-risk more interesting?" now I have a load-bearing fuzzy, where my interest in bio-risk might sustain my career better.

Or maybe it's a misaligned fuzzy, where it's interfering with my higher impact career path.

At this point, the whole dichotomy is just dead in the water. It restates the questions I had before learning anything about EA, and takes us all the way back to the cliche career advice "follow your passion [which gives you fuzzies which sometimes can be exchanged for utils.]"

If yes, the best use of time

If it was the best use of Michael's time, it seems to imply there's something not fungible about community participation. Likely enough. But I think it's important to not dismiss this for two reasons:

1. Do we just undervalue communities in general? Maybe Michael could have gone to church and convinced someone to become an EA.
2. Are we good at identifying non-fungible career activities in general? For example: voting is non-fungible so it might be worth your time in utils.
3. Take note of innovators: for instance, EA doesn't recommend becoming a politician (I think), yet several have passed critical AI legislation that EA now backs.

Conclusion

I think I covered a few topics along the way:

1. Self-care: so much fuzzy is load-bearing for util that it's misleading to treat it as a low-impact category. So do more fuzzy, probably.
2. Semantics: using fuzzy/util to model career selection won't help; it just begs the question, how important is passion.
3. Non-fungible career: community participation and some other stuff like voting seem non-fungible, so they can be util-level impact even if they're not being done by a professional.