After following ACX for a few years, getting more immersed in EA activities, and seeing the Mastermind post, I think an activity in which I’ve been engaged with for over a decade may be worth a shot among EA groups and meetups: Socrates Café. I was a bit surprised that it hadn’t been mentioned on the EA Forum before now, but better now than never.

The modern incarnation of Socrates Café has its origins with author Christopher Phillips (TED talk in 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWNOa-Q0S6c, https://socratescafe.com/?page_id=56). Long story short, it’s a group where individuals, using the Socratic method, delve into philosophical topics. From the meaning of life and the existence of morality to every manner of “is” and “should” you can conjure up, the group picks a topic, and the discussion begins. Extensive knowledge of particular philosophers and philosophies isn’t a prerequisite unless the group wants to create that kind of focus. We discuss topics and inquire with each other from our different perspectives. It’s not a formal organization, merely an idea in the public domain. I participated in a local Socrates Café group for many years since moving to Colorado. There was a core group of people from all walks of life, all generally cursed with thinking too much. 

When COVID hit, I considered branching out online to start my own Socrates Café within an organization I currently lead. After some thought and considering my own irritability with people who cannot figure out how to use a mute button, the decision was made to hold off until we could all meet in person. When the bulk of the pandemic was in the rearview mirror, I fired things up using a community room at my local city hall. My particular experience notwithstanding, there’s no reason this couldn’t be effectively executed in a virtual format.  

The rules are basic. It starts with a facilitator, a person familiar with the general process of running a Socrates Café meeting. For the first meeting, the facilitator usually picks the question to be asked for the session. Recent examples from my group include “What obligations do the living have to future generations?” “Was Michelangelo always in the block of marble?” and “What should the US do for Ukraine, if anything, amidst its war with Russia?” In principle, it can be a question about anything, it just must be a question. 

Generally, the first speaker is someone lays out some context for the question to be asked, and it doesn’t have to be the facilitator. From there, participants raise their hands to speak. (Speaking is encouraged for all attendees, but not required.) This creates a spot for you in the queue tracked by the facilitator. 

Now here’s where it gets Socratic: If you have a question for the current person speaking you may ask it directly without raising your hand and waiting (doing so in a timely and courteous manner). Questions asked of the speaker help to clarify, elicit expounding, and/or poke holes in the reasoning of what the speaker has put forward. These are the key exchanges, using questions to probe and counter assertions by others. 

At the end of the session (usually two hours), the group nominates and votes to select the topic for the next planned meeting. In my experience, topics about religion or politics are frowned upon unless kept on a strictly philosophical level. 

While those are the rules laid out by one Socrates Café group in Colorado, the benefits of the methodology are why I write about it. For any topic, broad or narrowly tailored, approaching EA subjects among the EA-minded in this manner could be a great addition to the EA quiver. Need to get the juices flowing on prioritizing one subject over another? Seeking to draw brighter lines to better refine how to measure the “good” done by a specific action? Wondering if you’re grasping your Bentham as well as you should?  Socrates Café may do the trick. It’s not designed with creating revenue in mind, but contemplated as a forum for those whose draw is solely intellectual curiosity. Its few formalities are there to give discussions some coherence, but the directions taken by a Socrates Café group are driven solely by the members.

I gave some consideration to writing a proposal for the FutureFund #23 project “A constitution for the future,” but time and other commitments prevented me from doing so (see the spinoff Constitution Café). Regardless, I am confident that this approach to discussion and thinking would benefit a whole host of EA-related endeavors. So long as discussions are all done in good faith, there’s no reason that any topic would need to be off limits. For those in the Anglophone world, there’s a good chance a Socrates Café group already exists in your area. If you’re curious about more particulars, ask away!

27

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This seems cool.

I think people should ideally do a lot of experimentation, running a bunch of EA events in different formats and reporting back on how they seemed to go. I like something of the spirit of the Socrates cafe, and hope it gets tried a few times!

Thanks, Owen. I agree that this approach lends itself to a lot of experimentation. While the "usual" approach (often) doesn't lend itself to a final consensus at the end of a session, I think doing this with a more defined purpose for EA participants would be relatively straightforward. I have some thoughts on how to best execute it, perhaps including a survey element for participants before and after a session or sessions. If you're interested in more particulars and nuances, I would be happy to share thoughts and ideas on a call or other correspondence.

I participated in an activity of this sort some years ago. I really enjoyed the structured conversation, and working towards consensus in a group. The experience was way more intense than any other context of presentation or debate that I have been a part of otherwise. I don't know whether EA groups should use the technique, but I wanted to share from my own experience:)

hi Ryan, this is Christopher Phillips, founder of Socrates Cafe.  Thanks so much for your kind words about it.  I can always be reached at SocratesCafe@gmail.com   thanks again

A further addition to the EA quiver would be reading groups to discuss the best books related to EA. As with the Socrates Cafe, discussions  could be structured around answering a central question.

Also ripe for a survey element 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Epistemic status: This post — the result of a loosely timeboxed ~2-day sprint[1] — is more like “research notes with rough takes” than “report with solid answers.” You should interpret the things we say as best guesses, and not give them much more weight than that. Summary There’s been some discussion of what “transformative AI may arrive soon” might mean for animal advocates. After a very shallow review, we’ve tentatively concluded that radical changes to the animal welfare (AW) field are not yet warranted. In particular: * Some ideas in this space seem fairly promising, but in the “maybe a researcher should look into this” stage, rather than “shovel-ready” * We’re skeptical of the case for most speculative “TAI<>AW” projects * We think the most common version of this argument underrates how radically weird post-“transformative”-AI worlds would be, and how much this harms our ability to predict the longer-run effects of interventions available to us today. Without specific reasons to believe that an intervention is especially robust,[2] we think it’s best to discount its expected value to ~zero. Here’s a brief overview of our (tentative!) actionable takes on this question[3]: ✅ Some things we recommend❌ Some things we don’t recommend * Dedicating some amount of (ongoing) attention to the possibility of “AW lock ins”[4]  * Pursuing other exploratory research on what transformative AI might mean for animals & how to help (we’re unconvinced by most existing proposals, but many of these ideas have received <1 month of research effort from everyone in the space combined — it would be unsurprising if even just a few months of effort turned up better ideas) * Investing in highly “flexible” capacity for advancing animal interests in AI-transformed worlds * Trying to use AI for near-term animal welfare work, and fundraising from donors who have invested in AI * Heavily discounting “normal” interventions that take 10+ years to help animals * “Rowing” on na
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
About the program Hi! We’re Chana and Aric, from the new 80,000 Hours video program. For over a decade, 80,000 Hours has been talking about the world’s most pressing problems in newsletters, articles and many extremely lengthy podcasts. But today’s world calls for video, so we’ve started a video program[1], and we’re so excited to tell you about it! 80,000 Hours is launching AI in Context, a new YouTube channel hosted by Aric Floyd. Together with associated Instagram and TikTok accounts, the channel will aim to inform, entertain, and energize with a mix of long and shortform videos about the risks of transformative AI, and what people can do about them. [Chana has also been experimenting with making shortform videos, which you can check out here; we’re still deciding on what form her content creation will take] We hope to bring our own personalities and perspectives on these issues, alongside humor, earnestness, and nuance. We want to help people make sense of the world we're in and think about what role they might play in the upcoming years of potentially rapid change. Our first long-form video For our first long-form video, we decided to explore AI Futures Project’s AI 2027 scenario (which has been widely discussed on the Forum). It combines quantitative forecasting and storytelling to depict a possible future that might include human extinction, or in a better outcome, “merely” an unprecedented concentration of power. Why? We wanted to start our new channel with a compelling story that viewers can sink their teeth into, and that a wide audience would have reason to watch, even if they don’t yet know who we are or trust our viewpoints yet. (We think a video about “Why AI might pose an existential risk”, for example, might depend more on pre-existing trust to succeed.) We also saw this as an opportunity to tell the world about the ideas and people that have for years been anticipating the progress and dangers of AI (that’s many of you!), and invite the br
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Hi all, This is a one time cross-post from my substack. If you like it, you can subscribe to the substack at tobiasleenaert.substack.com. Thanks Gaslit by humanity After twenty-five years in the animal liberation movement, I’m still looking for ways to make people see. I’ve given countless talks, co-founded organizations, written numerous articles and cited hundreds of statistics to thousands of people. And yet, most days, I know none of this will do what I hope: open their eyes to the immensity of animal suffering. Sometimes I feel obsessed with finding the ultimate way to make people understand and care. This obsession is about stopping the horror, but it’s also about something else, something harder to put into words: sometimes the suffering feels so enormous that I start doubting my own perception - especially because others don’t seem to see it. It’s as if I am being gaslit by humanity, with its quiet, constant suggestion that I must be overreacting, because no one else seems alarmed. “I must be mad” Some quotes from the book The Lives of Animals, by South African writer and Nobel laureate J.M. Coetzee, may help illustrate this feeling. In his novella, Coetzee speaks through a female vegetarian protagonist named Elisabeth Costello. We see her wrestle with questions of suffering, guilt and responsibility. At one point, Elisabeth makes the following internal observation about her family’s consumption of animal products: “I seem to move around perfectly easily among people, to have perfectly normal relations with them. Is it possible, I ask myself, that all of them are participants in a crime of stupefying proportions? Am I fantasizing it all? I must be mad!” Elisabeth wonders: can something be a crime if billions are participating in it? She goes back and forth on this. On the one hand she can’t not see what she is seeing: “Yet every day I see the evidences. The very people I suspect produce the evidence, exhibit it, offer it to me. Corpses. Fragments of