Hide table of contents

(I wrote more generally about this here earlier today, I'll limit this post to the EA-relevant context of my question. Apologies if this general principle was already widely-known to everyone except me.)

"Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary" 

-attributed to St Francis of Assisi

I have been thinking a lot recently about the way I talk about moral values that are important to me. One thing I've noticed is that while I easily update beliefs based on evidence and argumentation, I very rarely update my values accordingly (and to be honest for values like "you should care about people in poverty" it's not clear to me how I could be argued out of it.)

This exposes a problem with the way I talk about EA with my non-EA friends: a lot of my conversations are based around "trying to convince other people to agree with my values", which has not been particularly effective.  From the linked post:

"When I look at my own moral journey, the interactions I’ve grown the most from haven’t looked like “somebody trying to convince me a position is correct” so much as “somebody letting me into their journey to live out their values.”

I didn’t start to care about global poverty because of A Conversation™ with somebody who’d found exactly the right argument to prove that I should change the way I think. I started to care because I had friends who did, and they invited me into conversations about applying their values: “I’m trying to decide where I should donate this extra money I have. Do you have any ideas?” or “I have been taking bucket showers to keep the DR drought on my mind and in my prayers, and I can’t decide if this is an act of solidarity or a waste of time. What do you think?” or “I’m really upset about [event causing mass suffering] and I need somebody to talk to.” Rather than feeling attacked, I felt welcomed into discussions where they didn’t need to defend their values because I could see their inherent goodness working in my friends’ lives."

There's definitely some of this already in EA: Giving Games come to mind as a way to invite people into the world of effective giving as an experience rather than a list of arguments. But I think I personally have been overweighting the importance of logical arguments in changing behavior and values, and underweighting things like "having honest and vulnerable conversations about what's important to me" and "inviting people to do things with me," and based on interactions I've seen I suspect I am not alone in this. 

So two questions (I have thoughts on the first, I'll put them in a comment to keep the question itself short):

  • Do you have ideas of how to share the "EA" part of your life with others beyond "actively trying to convince them to change their mind?" What are they? If you've tried them in practice, have they been effective?
  • Do you have pointers to research (or better, a concise summary of research) on how people actually form and change their values? Any implications for EA?

 

 


 

8

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by

My initial thoughts for the first question, quoted from the linked post (so not all examples are EA-specific):

So if I want people to grow in the ways I’ve grown, I think I need to do a lot less arguing and a lot more applying. Less “here’s why I’m right” and more “here’s a question that’s important to me we figure out together.” Less “agree with my worldview” and more “walk this walk with me.” A few ideas have come to mind so far:

Framing: instead of a “do you believe in X?” or “do you think X is important?” conversation, starting a “what do you think we can do about X?”

Sincerity: actually listening to what other people say and learning from it, rather than “listening to respond.” You’ll understand your friend (and how to love them) better, and might be convicted of something you could change.

Patience: not every conversation needs to be “the big one,” and you might not see the fruits immediately. One of the biggest moments in my “conversion” towards Effective Altruism came after a summer missions trip, when a friend asked me whether I thought paying for a group of college students to travel was the best way to do good with the money we’d raised. She listened attentively to my answer and didn’t press the point, but I thought about it for a long time afterwards.

Creativity: the question doesn’t always have to be “here’s why we should care about the global poor.” Maybe it can be “I read a really cool paper this week about the effects of this nonprofit” or “I’m trying to spend less money on food. Do you have any advice?” or “Can we pray about the violence in Ethiopia this week?”. Give people a chance to care about things that are important to you!

Specificity: instead of “our current immigration policy is evil”, it might be easier to discuss something more concrete — e.g. “I’m really upset that so many of the refugees we’re requiring to Remain in Mexico are being assaulted and killed. Is there anything we as a church can do to help them?”

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
Notes  The following text explores, in a speculative manner, the evolutionary question: Did high-intensity affective states, specifically Pain, emerge early in evolutionary history, or did they develop gradually over time? Note: We are not neuroscientists; our work draws on our evolutionary biology background and our efforts to develop welfare metrics that accurately reflect reality and effectively reduce suffering. We hope these ideas may interest researchers in neuroscience, comparative cognition, and animal welfare science. This discussion is part of a broader manuscript in progress, focusing on interspecific comparisons of affective capacities—a critical question for advancing animal welfare science and estimating the Welfare Footprint of animal-sourced products.     Key points  Ultimate question: Do primitive sentient organisms experience extreme pain intensities, or fine-grained pain intensity discrimination, or both? Scientific framing: Pain functions as a biological signalling system that guides behavior by encoding motivational importance. The evolution of Pain signalling —its intensity range and resolution (i.e., the granularity with which differences in Pain intensity can be perceived)— can be viewed as an optimization problem, where neural architectures must balance computational efficiency, survival-driven signal prioritization, and adaptive flexibility. Mathematical clarification: Resolution is a fundamental requirement for encoding and processing information. Pain varies not only in overall intensity but also in granularity—how finely intensity levels can be distinguished.  Hypothetical Evolutionary Pathways: by analysing affective intensity (low, high) and resolution (low, high) as independent dimensions, we describe four illustrative evolutionary scenarios that provide a structured framework to examine whether primitive sentient organisms can experience Pain of high intensity, nuanced affective intensities, both, or neither.     Introdu
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We’ve redesigned effectivealtruism.org to improve understanding and perception of effective altruism, and make it easier to take action.  View the new site → I led the redesign and will be writing in the first person here, but many others contributed research, feedback, writing, editing, and development. I’d love to hear what you think, here is a feedback form. Redesign goals This redesign is part of CEA’s broader efforts to improve how effective altruism is understood and perceived. I focused on goals aligned with CEA’s branding and growth strategy: 1. Improve understanding of what effective altruism is Make the core ideas easier to grasp by simplifying language, addressing common misconceptions, and showcasing more real-world examples of people and projects. 2. Improve the perception of effective altruism I worked from a set of brand associations defined by the group working on the EA brand project[1]. These are words we want people to associate with effective altruism more strongly—like compassionate, competent, and action-oriented. 3. Increase impactful actions Make it easier for visitors to take meaningful next steps, like signing up for the newsletter or intro course, exploring career opportunities, or donating. We focused especially on three key audiences: * To-be direct workers: young people and professionals who might explore impactful career paths * Opinion shapers and people in power: journalists, policymakers, and senior professionals in relevant fields * Donors: from large funders to smaller individual givers and peer foundations Before and after The changes across the site are aimed at making it clearer, more skimmable, and easier to navigate. Here are some side-by-side comparisons: Landing page Some of the changes: * Replaced the economic growth graph with a short video highlighting different cause areas and effective altruism in action * Updated tagline to "Find the best ways to help others" based on testing by Rethink
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Around 1 month ago, I wrote a similar Forum post on the Easterlin Paradox. I decided to take it down because: 1) after useful comments, the method looked a little half-baked; 2) I got in touch with two academics – Profs. Caspar Kaiser and Andrew Oswald – and we are now working on a paper together using a related method.  That blog post actually came to the opposite conclusion, but, as mentioned, I don't think the method was fully thought through.  I'm a little more confident about this work. It essentially summarises my Undergraduate dissertation. You can read a full version here. I'm hoping to publish this somewhere, over the Summer. So all feedback is welcome.  TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test this hypothesis using a large (panel) dataset by asking a simple question: has the emotional impact of life events — e.g., unemployment, new relationships — weakened over time? If happiness scales have stretched, life events should “move the needle” less now than in the past. * That’s exactly what I find: on average, the effect of the average life event on reported happiness has fallen by around 40%. * This result is surprisingly robust to various model specifications. It suggests rescaling is a real phenomenon, and that (under 2 strong assumptions), underlying happiness may be 60% higher than reported happiness. * There are some interesting EA-relevant implications for the merits of material abundance, and the limits to subjective wellbeing data. 1. Background: A Happiness Paradox Here is a claim that I suspect most EAs would agree with: humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives than any point in history. Yet we seem no happier for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flat over the last f