Link to original article

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The phrase “hard-core EAs” does more harm than good, published by Helen on January 4, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In casual discussions in EA spaces, it’s often useful to be able to refer separately to: The smaller group of people who are 100% bought into EA, in the thick of things, relying on EA ideas and the EA community to steer many of their decisions The larger group of people who are interested in EA, perhaps have engaged with it some, perhaps have been to a few meetups or donated to GiveWell charities, or maybe just agree with EA principles but haven’t engaged with the community much I often hear the former category referred to as "hard-core EAs." I think that this is harmful and exclusive, that it reflects and contributes to sloppy thinking, and that we should stop doing it. This post explains why and offers a couple alternatives. Why? My issues with the phrase “hard-core EAs” mostly boil down to the implicit hierarchy it creates. I think implying a hierarchy like this is unwelcoming and distorts our thinking. Unwelcoming: This one should hopefully be obvious. If this phrase is in common use, anyone who doesn't think they count as hard-core, or isn't sure, is likely to feel like they don't belong or are doing something wrong. “Hard-core” is also condescending — anyone describing themselves or their friends this way naturally sounds like they're looking down their nose at others. Distorts our thinking: Talking in terms of how “hard-core” someone is conflates together a bunch of different dimensions that are importantly different. Saying someone is hard-core could be taken to mean that they: Are actually having a significant positive impact on the world Are deeply committed to overarching EA principles, e.g. impartiality, cost effectiveness, cause prioritization, etc. Are deeply embedded in the current EA community, e.g. buying into the community’s specific priorities/frameworks, spending lots of time with other EAs, etc. Work themselves extremely hard to try to maximize impact ...among other things. In my mind, #1 and #2 are the traits that we as a community should promote and think highly of. But in practice, I think “hard-core EAs” is usually used to point to people whose distinguishing features are #3 & #4. I worry that this reflects and reinforces distorted beliefs the community has about itself, by making it sound like #3 & #4 are the more desirable traits. This worries me for two reasons: First, current EA ideas, paradigms, and conclusions are bound to be wrong in important ways, even if they’re importantly right in some other ways.[1] According to me, the community is currently too far in the direction of encouraging conformity and convergence, and should move substantially towards encouraging exploration, questioning, and paradigm-busting. Glorifying “hard-core” EAs who buy into all the existing EA frameworks shuts us off from being curious about what we've gotten wrong and where other people or communities might be right. We should be looking out for people trying to figure this out in a serious way and getting excited when they reach different conclusions from us, not deriding them for not being fully part of our club. Second, planning to work yourself to the bone for the rest of your life is unlikely to be the highest impact strategy. Comments that really hard-core people don’t think it’s important to pace yourself or have a life outside EA (like this tweet, quoting a speaker at EA Global 2021) make me despair for our ability to make the world a better place. It really shouldn’t be controversial to say that (a) some people can work incredibly hard and be productive the whole time, (b) many others need different rhythms, and (c) everyone should figure out what works for them—including sometimes pushing yourself to test and expand your limit...