1 Reading Summary
Last updated
Last updated
Defining Thinking Principles
Maximizing Impact
More is better than less
e.g., some charities help 100 or even 1,000 times as many people as others, when given the same amount of resources
Impartiality
Every being matters equally when it comes to their well-being
Continuous Truth-seeking
Committing to continuously reflect on finding the best way to help rather than committing to a specific cause without further reflection
Evidence Based
Quantification of impact
e.g., QALY i.e,. 1 year of healthy life
Community
Working together seems to be more effective than alone
Approach > Conclusion
Not united by any particular solution to the world’s problems, but by a way of thinking.
Research & Action
Research
Figuring out what the best ways to do good are
Action
Taking Action upon research
Examples of EA's Actions
Pandemic
Starting a Public Discourse
Funding Research
Creation of organization e.g., 1daysooner for human vaccine trial
Poverty & Medical Supply
Donation
Createion of organization e.g., 'Wave' for cheaper money transfer
AI alignment
Awareness making e.g., 'Superintelligence' book
Creation of Research Centers & Organizations
Ending Factory Farming
Creation of Organization
e.g., 'Open Wing Alliance' preventing 100 million birds to be caged
e.g., Good Food Institute supporting Alternative Protein
Improving Decision-Making
Forecasting
e.g., Metaculus
Creation of Research center
e.g.,Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University
4 Ideas
Helping others is good
vs Helping others is not good
Impartiality is good
vs valuing people's well-being differently is good
Scale is good
vs it doesn't matter if some people die even if it doesn't really cost us anything extra to save their lives
Resources are limited
vs Resources are unlimited
Consequence of those Ideas
Giving people equal consideration or discriminating them arbitrarily
Helping as many people as we can or not
There is Suffering
e.g., presently child death ~5.5 million per year
It is getting better
e.g., in the past ~60 million per year
It could be much better
e.g., presently best state ~0.5 million per year
Scope Insensitivity
Recognizing that our caring via 'feeling' does not scale with the scale of the suffering/well-being we preceive.
Feeling-care does not inform you how important something to you is
Feeling-care is inadequate to inform your decision-making on how to act
e.g,. how much resources to invest in project xyz
Feeling-care misrepresent how much you actually care about situation xyz
Experience it for yourself. How much do you feeling-care about saving 1 live, 10, 100, 1000, 10000.
Does this feeling-care scale 10x,100x,1000x,1000x?
Recommended Approach to Caring for Scope Sensitivity
Caring via Feeling-Caring for Motivation
Caring motivates to help
Caring motivates to prefer helping more rather than less
Caring via Mathematical-Caring for Scaling
Put a number on something you care about
Multiply it
Motivation for Caring
Bad
Based on Selfishness e.g., Laziness, Social Pressure, Competitiveness, Pride
Imagine asking a person to donate all of their disposable money to a good cause - they would most likely decline
Guilt
Exhausting i.e,. non-sustainable
Good
Based on Selflessness e.g., Compassion
Imagine asking a person to donate all of their disposable money to a good cause - they would agree however ask which is the best cause
Happiness for the opportunity to improve
Example
Persona were asked how much they were willing to pay to save the life of the following groups of birds - from drowning in oil
Group 1: 2,000 birds
Group 2: 20,000 birds
Group 3: 200,000 birds
Result
Group 1: 80USD = 4 Cents/Bird
Group 2: 78USD = 0.4 Cents/Bird
Group 3: 88USD = 0.04 Cents/Bird
Conclusion
Willingness to pay did not increase in proportion with the scale i.e., Scope Insensitivity
What is Scope Insensitivity?
Inability to realize the real scope of a certain quantity
When comparing two different quantities, we fail to notice the difference between them
Occurs usually when quantities are large
Cause of Scope Insensitivity
Human Species has insufficient default ability to proportionally 'imagine' big scales
imagine 2000 birds, now 20,000 birds, now 200,000 birds. Does the second group feel 10x bigger, the third group 100x bigger?
Problems & Solutions
Not adjusting their evaluation of an issue in proportion to the scale of it
Failure to notice scope insensitivity
Clarity of 'Scope Insensitivity'
Insufficient emotional response which actives motivation to care
Connect to the suffering of an individual victim of a large scale suffering
Practice Imagination
largest number of e.g., insects that you can & remember of big of an issue it is
Animal Welfare
Impairs judgement about helping animals i.e., astronomical amount of suffering (factory farming, wild-life)
Collapse of Compassion
When experiencing excessive suffering, one's habitual defense mechanism is to numb ourselves towards it
Cultivate Compassion & Resilience (Equanimity)
Good-intent is insufficient
If the objective is to cause good, one's focus should be on the good caused > feeling good about it
It feels good to save 2,000 or 200,000 birds, however there is a 100 difference in lives saved. There is not a 100 difference in feeling good about it
Good Judgements
Accurate Predictions
Good Decisions
Unconscious Motivations based on desire i.e., fear, defensiveness
Emotional state influences how we interpret information
Example of Warrior Mindset
Imagine a referee judging the team that you support as committing a foul
It is likely that one will look for reasons why the referee is wrong and not about reasons for why the referee is correct
Imagine a referee judging the opposing team as committing a foul
It is likely that one will look for reasons why the referee is correct, and not about reasons for why the referee is incorrect
Example of Scout Mindset
One has the belief that capital punishment works
Studies shows that it doesn't
'Oh, looks like I might be wrong. This doesn't mean I am bad or stupid'
Warrior Mindset
Objective: Defend, attack, defeat
Behaviour
Some information are allies i.e., to be protected
Some information are enemies i.e., to be defeated
Reflexive behaviour
Elevated adrenaline
Causes
based on desire i.e., fear, defensiveness
Scout Mindset
Objective: Understand, not defend
Even if unpleasant, inconvenient
Not to make one idea win or another lose
Behaviour
intrigued by contradictions
Belief that it is virtuous to test beliefs
Experiencing pleasure when learning new information
Causes
Emotional Safety > fear and need to defend
Self-worth not based on their beliefs being right or wrong
Perception Change
Benefit in learning & curiosity
Not
more logic, rhetoric, probability, economics
Yes
Change the way we feel
Pride instead of ashamed when learning
Intrigued instead of defensive when learning