Stop saying Effective Altruism is "weird", "cringe" and full of problems - so often
And yes, "weird" has negative connotations to most people. Self flagellation once helped highlight areas needing improvement. Now overcorrection has created hesitation among responsible, cautious, and credible people who might otherwise publicly identify as effective altruists. As a result, the label increasingly belongs to those willing to accept high reputational risks or use it opportunistically, weakening the movement’s overall credibility.
If you're aligned with EA’s core principles, thoughtful in your actions, and have no significant reputational risks, then identifying openly as an EA is especially important. Normalising the term matters. When credible and responsible people embrace the label, they anchor it positively and prevent misuse.
Offline I was early to criticise Effective Altruism’s branding and messaging. Admittedly, the name itself is imperfect. Yet at this point, it is established and carries public recognition. We can't discard it without losing valuable continuity and trust. If you genuinely believe in the core ideas and engage thoughtfully with EA’s work, openly identifying yourself as an effective altruist is a logical next step.
Specifically, if you already have a strong public image, align privately with EA values, and have no significant hidden issues, then you're precisely the person who should step forward and put skin in the game. Quiet alignment isn’t enough. The movement’s strength and reputation depend on credible voices publicly standing behind it.
Thanks to your post, I see HLI's 2023 pilot study ("Can we trust wellbeing surveys?") explores methods to correct for interpersonal scale-use differences. Although it doesn’t appear these methods have been incorporated into HLI’s cost-effectiveness models, maybe we’ll see how much scale norming might alter cost-effectiveness results like WELLBYs-per-dollar in time.
Does Rice theorem resolve the halting problem?
And yes, "weird" has negative connotations to most people. Self flagellation once helped highlight areas needing improvement. Now overcorrection has created hesitation among responsible, cautious, and credible people who might otherwise publicly identify as effective altruists. As a result, the label increasingly belongs to those willing to accept high reputational risks or use it opportunistically, weakening the movement’s overall credibility.
If you're aligned with EA’s core principles, thoughtful in your actions, and have no significant reputational risks, then identifying openly as an EA is especially important. Normalising the term matters. When credible and responsible people embrace the label, they anchor it positively and prevent misuse.
Offline I was early to criticise Effective Altruism’s branding and messaging. Admittedly, the name itself is imperfect. Yet at this point, it is established and carries public recognition. We can't discard it without losing valuable continuity and trust. If you genuinely believe in the core ideas and engage thoughtfully with EA’s work, openly identifying yourself as an effective altruist is a logical next step.
Specifically, if you already have a strong public image, align privately with EA values, and have no significant hidden issues, then you're precisely the person who should step forward and put skin in the game. Quiet alignment isn’t enough. The movement’s strength and reputation depend on credible voices publicly standing behind it.
Thanks to your post, I see HLI's 2023 pilot study ("Can we trust wellbeing surveys?") explores methods to correct for interpersonal scale-use differences. Although it doesn’t appear these methods have been incorporated into HLI’s cost-effectiveness models, maybe we’ll see how much scale norming might alter cost-effectiveness results like WELLBYs-per-dollar in time.