For what it's worth, there used to be an 80k pledge along similar lines. They quietly dropped it several years ago, so you might want to find someone involved in that decision to try and understand why (I suspect and dimly remember that it was some combination of non-concreteness, and concerns about other-altruism-reduction effects).
Thanks for flagging this Arepo, I will reach out to them!
I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference
I find the word maximise pretty scary here, for similar reasons to here. Analogous how GWWC is about giving 10%, a bounded amount, not "as much as you can possibly spare while surviving and earning money"
To me, taking a pledge to maximise seriously (especially in a naive conception where "I will get sick of this and break the pledge" or "I will burn out" aren't considerations) is a terrible idea, and I recommend that people take pledges with something more like "heavily prioritise" or "keep as one of my top prioritise" or "actually put a sincere, consistent effort into, eg by spending at least an hour per month reflecting on whether I'm having the impact I want". Of course, in practice, a pledge to maximise generally means one of those things, since people always have multiple priorities, but I like pledges to be something that could be realistically kept.
Thanks for the feedback Neel! Obviously as noted above, we released this quickly (after <12 hours of work) to get feedback exactly like this. We will focus on rewording the pledge statement to try to reduce or, if we're especially lucky, nullify the concerns you've raised here.
I'd think a better way to get feedback is to ask "What do you think of this pledge wording?" rather than encourage people to take a lifelong pledge before it's gotten much external feedback.
For comparison, you could see when GWWC was considering changing the wording of its pledge (though I recognize it was in a different position as an existing pledge rather than a new one): Should Giving What We Can change its pledge?
I'd think a better way to get feedback is to ask "What do you think of this pledge wording?" rather than encourage people to take a lifelong pledge before it's gotten much external feedback.
The idea of an Minimal Viable Product is you're unsure what part of your product provides value and what parts are sticking points. After you release the MVP the sticking points are much clearer, and you have a much better idea on where to focus your limited time and money.
Asking people to try out a minimum viable product, which they can abandon if they don't like it, seems fine. Asking people to take a minimum viable pledge about how they will orient their entire career seems very different to me.
Glad to hear it!
This seems like a reasonable mistake for younger EAs to make, and I've seen similar mindsets frequently - but in the community, I am very happy to see that many other members are providing a voice of encouragement, but also signficantly more moderation.
But as I said in another comment, and expanded on in a reply, I'm much more concerned than you seem to be about people committing to something even more mild for their entire careers - especially if doing so as college students. Many people don't find work in the area they hope to. Even among those that do find jobs in EA orgs and similar, which is a small proportion of those who want to, some don't enjoy the things they would view as most impactful, and find they are unhappy and/or ineffective; having made a commitment to do whatever is most impactful seems unlikely to work well for a large fraction of those who would make such a pledge.
I feel pretty ok with a very mild and bounded commitment? Especially with an awareness that forcing yourself to be miserable is rarely the way to be just effective yourself. I think it's pretty valid for someone's college age self to say that impact does matter to them, and they do care about this, and don't want to totally forget about it even if it becomes inconvenient, so long as they avoid ways this is psychological even by light of those values
I don't think that people making mild bounded commitments is bad - I'm more concerned about the community dynamics of selecting people who make these commitments and stick with them, and the impact it has on the rest of the community.
My tentative take is that this is on-net bad, and should not be encouraged. I give this a 10/10 for good intent, but a 2/10 for planning and avoiding foreseeable issues, including the unilateralists curse, the likely object level impacts of the pledge, and the reputational and community impacts of promoting the idea.
It is not psychologically healthy to optimize or maximize your life towards a single goal, much less commit to doing so. That isn't the EA ideal. Promising to "maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference" is an unlimited and worryingly cult-like commitment, builds in no feedback from others who have a broader perspective about what is or is not important or useful. It implicitly requires pledgers to prioritize impact over personal health and psychological wellbeing. (The claim that it's usually the case that burnout reduces impact is a contingent one, and seems very likely to lead many people to overcommit and do damaging things.) It leads to unhealthy competitive dynamics, and excludes most people, especially the psychologically well adjusted.
I will contrast this to the giving pledge, which is very explicitly a partial pledge, requiring 10% of your income. This is achievable without extreme measures, or giving up having a normal life. The pledge was built via consultation with and advice from a variety of individuals, especially including those who were more experienced, which also seems to sharply contrast with this one.
I agree r.e the unhealthiness of maximise, at least for me personally. Makes me wonder- what could a partial career pledge look like? Some options:
Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate it and agree that maximize it a pretty strong world. Just to clarify the crux here, would you say that this project doesn't make sense over-all or would you say that the text of the pledge be changed to something more manageable?
I think it's a problem overall, and I've talked about this a bit in two of the articles I linked to. To expand on the concerns, I'm concerned on a number of levels, starting from community dynamics that seem to dismiss anyone not doing direct work as insufficiently EA, to the idea that we should be a community that encourages making often already unhealthy levels of commitment by young adults into pledges to continue that level of dedication for their entire careers.
As someone who has spent most of a decade working in EA, I think this is worrying, even for people deciding on their own to commit themselves. People should be OK with prioritizing themselves to a significant extent, and while deciding to work on global priorities is laudable *if you can find something that fits your abilities and skill set*, but committing to do so for your entire career, which may not follow the path you are hoping for, seems at best unwise. Suggesting that others do so seems very bad.
So again, I applaud the intent, and think it was a reasonable idea to propose and get feedback about, but I also strongly think it should be dropped and you should move to something else.
starting from community dynamics that seem to dismiss anyone not doing direct work as insufficiently EA
This seems like very unfortunate zero-sum framing to me. Speaking personally, I've taken the 10% pledge, been heavily involved in Giveffektivt.dk, pushed for GWWC to have (the first) pledge table at EAGxNordics '24, and excited to support 10% pledge communities.
When I work on expanding the 10% pledge community, that does not mean I am disparaging using one's career to do good, and vice versa.
commitment by young adults into pledges to continue that level of dedication for their entire careers
I am curious if you are see the adverse effect playing out on harm to the individual or opportunity cost as a result of harm to the individual?
Fx, I took the pledge in 2020 (iirc), and have (deliberately) earned very little working as a community builder - to such an extent that I haven't saved a sufficient runaway. This has lead to decent amounts of stress over several years.
It's pretty clear to me that the stress caused was "worth it", in terms of the amount of good that money could do if given to mosquito nets.
However, I think the larger consideration is opportunity cost, as a result of me being less productive.
But does that mean I think the pledge, or the drowning child thought experiment ect. have been net negative (assuming their affects were isolated to only me)?. No, I think that's too little resolution. I think they've been net-positive, it's just that we haven't fine-tuned our community yet.
What would this finetuning look like? I am unsure, but I think it would look like a lot of support to plan your career and look for opportunities, but also strong cultural norms for living active fulfilling lives.
I think a lot of the purported solutions to reducing burnout (and associated adverse affects) are low-resolution and facile, fx earning huge salaries.
I agree with most of what you wrote here, but think that the pledge, as a specific high resolution effort, is not helpful. You're confusing what zero-sum does and does not mean - I agree with the point that a community that acts the way the EA community has is unfortunately exclusionary, but I also think that making more pledges does the opposite of remove those dynamics. I also think that looking at the outcomes for those who made pledges and stuck around is selecting on the outcome variable; the damage that high expectations have may be on-net worthwhile, but it would be unreasonable to come to that conclusion on the basis of talking to who stuck around.
I agree with most of what you wrote here, but think that the pledge, as a specific high resolution effort, is not helpful.
This is quite possible, but that's why we will have M&E and are committing bounded amounts of time to this project. - Although neither of these are much help if there's a distinct externality/direct harm to the wider community
Would you be able to explain why you think so? I can see you've linked to a post but it would take me >15 minutes to read and I think that would be a bad use of my time
I also think that looking at the outcomes for those who made pledges and stuck around is selecting on the outcome variable; the damage that high expectations have may be on-net worthwhile, but it would be unreasonable to come to that conclusion on the basis of talking to who stuck around.
I think my suggestion for randomised outreach and follow-up here would largely control for this
I like this idea, the clear metrics, and the MVP style of execution. I wish more people would attempt projects on a small scale like this to see if they gain traction before, for example, fundraising $100k and launching a full organization.
Thank-you for the kind words Joey! I can confirm that you are the first Better Career Pledger!
This is such a compelling idea—thank you for putting it out there! Does the pledge commit me to pursuing high-impact work specifically, or could it also include earning to give if that turns out to be my best option for impact later down the line?
Does the pledge commit me to pursuing high-impact work specifically, or could it also include earning to give if that turns out to be my best option for impact later down the line?
This is such a great question, and a vitally important consideration. With the current wording of the pledge, it states:
I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference
I take this wording to include Earning To Give, when it's the most impactful option available to you.
I would be curious to hear what you think about this wording, and if you would like to see any changes to make it clearer? Alternatively, we could address it in an FAQ section.
I think a lot of commenters are taking the "maximize" bit too literally. EAs are a bit on the neurotic side and like to take things literally, but colloquially, people understand that maximize doesn't mean maximize at all other costs. I agree that maximization is perilous but in every day language, with which every day people we are trying to appeal to communicate, "maximize" doesn't mean to do so at all costs like maximizing a single function. When my basketball coach would tell me to score as many points as possible, I took it as a given he didn't think I should hold the referees and other team at gunpoint until they allowed me to score points easily or do any number of other ridiculous actions. When a friend tells me to come as early as I can, they don't mean for me to floor the gas pedal from my current location.
A pledge summed up in a single sentence isn't going to have all the caveats and asterisks that EAs like to have when they speak precisely.
I think you should explain in this post what the pledge people may take :-)
I am particularly interested in how to pledge more concrete. I have always thought that the 10% pledge is somewhat incomplete because it does not consider the career. However, I think it would be useful to make the career pledge more actionable.
Thanks for flagging this Pablo! I added it to the post after I read your comment
FYI the School for Moral Ambition has a career pledge. Participants of their circle programme (like an intro fellowship but self-facilitated) are encouraged to take it at the end. AFAIK, over 100 people have taken it so far. Might be worth reaching out to them to see what they've learned? Niki might be a good person to contact. She manages the circle programme and was a volunteer at EA Netherlands before that.
Thanks for flagging this! I didn't know this was the was the case - I will reach out to them
Props for the initiative!
What names did you consider for the pledge? One con of the current name is that it could elicit some reactions like:
It might be largely down to whether someone interprets better as "better than I might otherwise do" or "better than others' careers". Likely depends on culture too, for example I think here in Finland the above reactions could be more likely since people tend to value humbleness quite a bit.
Anyway I'm not too worried since the name has positives too, and you can always adapt the name based on how outreach goes if you do end up experimenting with it. 👍
This is such a great question. We considered a very limited pool of ideas, for a very limited amount of time. I think the closest competitor was Career for Good.
The thinking being, that we can always get something up, test if there's actually interest in this, before actually spending significant resources into the branding side of things.
One con of the current name is that it could elicit some reactions
I agree that seems to being played out here! This could pose a good reason to change the name
It might be largely down to whether someone interprets better as "better than I might otherwise do" or "better than others' careers"
In case there was any doubt, we didn't intend to say "Better than others". The fact that Bettercareers.com was taken was seen by myself as a positive update
My main point of criticism, that I didn't see anyone else mention in the top-level comments, is that the pledge just seems too vague and broad. A 10 percent pledge is very concrete and measurable. Of course there is a difference in opinion in terms of what charities count as impactful, just like with careers. But with careers the difference in opinion is too broad for this pledge to be useful. Some could just interpret this pledge as "I'll become a doctor or work for an ngo" without giving much extra thought. While with the 10% pledge there is a clear significant minimum commitment. I don't think it solves the issue of value drift either. I imagine that in reality, when value drift happens, the individual won't be quick to admit their values have drifted even if they aren't actively looking for the most impactful career opportunities anymore. And there is also a higher chance people will just forget about the pledge and ignore any reminders. You could try and make the pledge more measurable, but then I think you'll quickly run into Goodhart's Law. I'm skeptical there is a way to have a career pledge and avoid these issues. I could be wrong, and I do welcome trying out new things like this!
Very nit-picky but I'm not sure this is a real William James quote: “Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.” Doesn't really sound like him to me.
Looks like it checks out: "Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." Correspondence with Helen Keller, 1908, in The Correspondence of William James: April 1908–August 1910, Vol. 12, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004, page 135, as cited in: Academics in Action!: A Model for Community-engaged Research, Teaching, and Service (New York: Fordham University Press, 2016, page 71) https://archive.org/details/academicsinactio0000unse/page/1/mode/1up
Thank you so much David! I spent a while looking before I commented and I could only find it on 'brainyquotes.com' and the like.
In this case- I really like that quote- suits the website.
Be the first person to take the Better Career Pledge! A pledge to use your career to make a meaningful difference for the World. The site is currently in beta, and we’d greatly appreciate your feedback!
Perhaps you’re about to graduate soon, and looking to gather some career capital and save some runway before (as an example) applying for one of AIM’s programmes. But a part of you is concerned that time spent, and that delicious income increase from your soon-to-be employer, will result in forgetting what you really stand for. You’re not alone with this worry, it’s called Value Drift, and it’s a legitimate concern.
The Better Career Pledge is modeled on GWWC’s 10% pledge, It serves as a public declaration of lasting commitment.
In a post on Value drift, it’s estimated that the rate of attrition of engaged individuals is 50% after 5 years - which the author, Joey, summarises as being “high” and “pretty scary”.
In the same post, a semi-fictional example is given:
[Paraphrased from Original] “Alice discovers EA in college, becomes deeply involved, and takes the GWWC pledge. She interns at an EA organization but later prioritizes school and personal life over restarting her EA chapter. After graduation, she takes a consulting job, intending to donate, but delays due to financial concerns and family expectations. Over time, EA fades from her priorities, and she donates only a modest amount. What felt like reasonable decisions led to “value drift,” leaving her less connected to EA than her college self would have hoped”
By making a public pledge, we hope to significantly reduce your chance of experiencing value drift.
As of time of writing, the Better Career Pledge States:
I recognize that my career is one of the most powerful tools I have to create a positive impact in the world.
I pledge to align my professional life with my values by pursuing work that contributes to the greater good. I commit to using my skills, time, and opportunities to maximize my ability to make a meaningful difference, remaining thoughtful and purposeful in the choices I make throughout my career.
I make this pledge freely, openly, and sincerely, knowing that my actions can create lasting change.
We’ve announced the Better Career Pledge at a very early stage, to help gauge interest. That means you can help us a lot right now, by doing any of the following:
If we receive 5-10 pledgers by January 2025, and several testimonies. We will build out the member page of the site, and create marketing materials. We’ll onboard some volunteers, working on either the website or the brand and vision. We will then find a lead for the organisation, spinning it out of EA-Denmark, and building the brand to a point it’s widely recognisable among college students in the US and UK by 2035.
The Better Career Pledge is an initiative by Effective Altruism Denmark. This idea has been referenced before on the EA-Forum, and it turned up in our long-list of potential projects.
After making some Back-of-the-envelope Cost-Effective Analyses (I.e. BOTEC CEA’s) of 20+ projects, we found it to score among the most promising. We’re very unsure on both (1) How much demand there is for such an organization and (2) How much of an impact taking the better career pledge creates.
We hope that this post will begin to tease out the answer to (1) and that (2) can be remedied by some conversations with GWWC, and some M&E infrastructure.
We’ve budgeted 40 hours for this project, and have spent 12 of those to date (~4 hours on branding, 4 hours on the website, and ~4 hours writing this post).
A quick note on our M&E. With significant demand, we would be excited to partner with some local groups to run randomised outreach, with follow-up on an annual basis (think RCT).
Under scenarios with less demand, we will send out a survey to annual pledgers, and conduct some ad-hoc interviews. We expect this approach can only rule-out impact, rather than “rule-in”.
I think earning to give is the correct primary route to impact for the majority of current EAs and a major current shortcoming of the movement is failing to socially reward earning to give relative to pursuing direct work. I worry that this project, if successful, would push this dynamic further in the wrong direction.
The short version of the argument is that excessive praise for 'direct work' has caused a lot of people who fail to secure direct work to feel un-valued and bounce off EA. Others have expanded their definitions of what counts as an impactful org to justify themselves according to the direct work standard when they could have more impact ETGing in a conventional job and donating to the very best existing orgs.
All the EA-committed dollars in the world are a tiny drop in the ocean of the world's problems and it takes really incredible talent to leverage those dollars in a way that would be more effective than adding to them. Finding talent to do that is critical (I do this), but people need to be well calibrated and thoughtful in deciding whether and for how long to pursue particular direct work opportunities vs ETG. I think hurling (competing!) solemn pledges at them is not the way to make this happen.
This seems false to me. I agree that earning to give should be highly rewarded and so on, but I don't think that, for example, launching an effective giving organization requires an incredible amount of talent. There have been many launched recently, either by CE or local groups (I was part of the team that launched one in Denmark). Recently, EAIF said that they are not funding-constrained, and there are a lot of projects being funded on Manifund. It looks more like funders are looking for new projects to fund. So either most of the funders are wrong in their assessment and should just grant to existing opportunities, or there is still room for new projects.
If anything my experience was that the bar for direct work is way lower than I expected and part of reason why I thought that way was that there are comments like this.
Interesting! Is there any data that supports this?