Thanks -- I get paid too little to herd children IRL to do it for free on reddit. ;)
Also, looking through your post history -- can I come over to your house for some baked goods later? =D
“Sorry about the famine, but the expected number of New York Times
bestsellers is simply greater this way,” I say as I flip a giant switch
that redirects millions of dollars of aid from Yemen to the University
of Chicago department of economics.
They’re really a one-trick pony. Take my pre-existing ideas, sprinkle
a bit of math on them, and voila! They become objective truth. Come up
with some new bullshit at least, jeeze.
Imagine thinking that this kind of ineffective yet anal creepiness consistituted the best illustration of people trying to end global poverty.
*shudder*
Obviously it doesn’t.
Compared to whiny and useless people on the internet, people working in EA/givewell are literal moral gods. How much have you done to make the world a better place in a rigorous way? And yet you have the audacity to call them “creepy” because they actually try to quantify things.
In fact, the use of the word “creepiness” constitutes an invocation of the politics of disgust, which never goes well (read some Martha Nussbaum)
> Obviously it doesn’t.
Then why did you say "the people who are trying to end global poverty"?
>people working in EA/givewell are literal moral gods.
Oh my god this is brilliant.
>How much have you done to make the world a better place in a rigorous way?
I donate/volunteer for my local cat rescue and political party.
You? Other than making spreadsheets and spaffing money on MIRI of course.
>And yet you have the audacity to call them “creepy” because they actually try to quantify things.
I have the audacity to call them creepy because they are creepy. Generally they are socially backward; so obsessed with quantifying things that they lose sight of what it is they're supposed to be doing.
And are of course utterly blind to root causes, usually under the guise of libertarian- or neoliberalism.
>In fact, the use of the word “creepiness” constitutes an invocation of the politics of disgust, which never goes well (read some Martha Nussbaum)
No, I think you've either misunderstood the work you're referring to, or you're deliberately conflating negative attitudes and putting them under the umbrella of disgust.
The creepiness I refer to regards the lack of social and personal awareness of those in the EA 'community'. The cold way in which they value reductive nonsense, based on their own overinflated sense of intelligence, driven circularly by their obsession with quantification and metrics like IQ.
The politics of disgust is also, of course, strongly correlated with conservative values. Values that I do not share.
\> Then why did you say "the people who are trying to end global poverty"?
Because, as the rest of your post clearly demonstrates, you are dismissive of the whole movement.
\> I have the audacity to call them creepy because they are creepy. Generally they are socially backward; so obsessed with quantifying things that they lose sight of what it is they're supposed to be doing... The creepiness I refer to regards the lack of social and personal awareness of those in the EA 'community'. The cold way in which they value reductive nonsense, based on their own overinflated sense of intelligence, driven circularly by their obsession with quantification and metrics like IQ.
Being a good person isn't about having the correct feelings or being good at the implicit social cognition that most of us take for granted; it's about actually doing good, which EAs do a lot of. Moreover, to the extent that you believe ethics is based in reason, a cold and impartial attitude should be preferable, so that we don't waste resources on causes that feel good but don't do good. Also, I don't know why you're talking about IQ all of a sudden, which is pretty unrelated to EA.
\> And are of course utterly blind to root causes, usually under the guise of libertarian- or neoliberalism.
1. As a matter of fact, the significant majority of EAs are left of center ([https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/S2Sonawxz2cY4YdXK/ea-survey-2018-series-community-demographics-and](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/S2Sonawxz2cY4YdXK/ea-survey-2018-series-community-demographics-and)).
2. It is nonetheless stupid to even entertain the idea that capitalism is the root cause of global poverty when prior to the existence of capitalism, 99% of humanity lived in subsistence conditions, and the recent expansion of global markets/liberalization in countries like China and India have lifted millions out of poverty
\> No, I think you've either misunderstood the work you're referring to, or you're deliberately conflating negative attitudes and putting them under the umbrella of disgust.
The word "creepy," especially when used to insult nerdy, socially inept men for those qualities, is clearly intended to evoke disgust. I am aware that Nussbaum doesn't talk about this specific issue in her writings, but the principle is the same.
\> The politics of disgust is also, of course, strongly correlated with conservative values. Values that I do not share.
Clearly you think that it's okay to demean and dismiss people, even highly moral people, for not being as socially skilled/normal as you are.
>Because, as the rest of your post clearly demonstrates, you are dismissive of the whole movement.
I don't think you've understood this at all. Try to read better.
I'm dismissive of the EA movement. Not those that are trying to end global poverty. You said that the EA movement were *the* people trying to end global poverty.
>Being a good person isn't about having the correct feelings or being good at the implicit social cognition that most of us take for granted; it's about actually doing good, which EAs do a lot of.
No, you're still not understanding. It's the social inability combined with a sense of superiority that means they're *not* the 'moral gods' they think they are.
> Moreover, to the extent that you believe ethics is based in reason, a cold and impartial attitude should be preferable, so that we don't waste resources on causes that feel good but don't do good.
More creepy (and crucially, incorrect) moralising.
>As a matter of fact, the significant majority of EAs are left of center
The significant majority of EAs *say* they're left of centre.
>It is nonetheless stupid to even entertain the idea that capitalism is the root cause of global poverty when prior to the existence of capitalism, 99% of humanity lived in subsistence conditions, and the recent expansion of global markets/liberalization in countries like China and India have lifted millions out of poverty
Ah - there it is! Another nerve touched apparently.
I never said anything at all about capitalism. I wouldn't need to; I'm a capitalist.
>The word "creepy," especially when used to insult nerdy, socially inept men for those qualities, is clearly intended to evoke disgust. I am aware that Nussbaum doesn't talk about this specific issue in her writings, but the principle is the same.
No, you have absolutely misunderstood the subject you're trying to discuss here. The politics of disgust is very closely related to bodily revulsion.
Trying to put all negative attitudes under this umbrella is (unsurprisingly) pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
>Clearly you think that it's okay to demean and dismiss people, even highly moral people, for not being as socially skilled/normal as you are.
What does this have to do with conservatism?
I demean and dismiss those people that self-righteously *believe* that they are highly moral and highly intelligent. Being socially inept is fine. Not understanding that, and hiding behind false intellectualism, is what's creepy.
And I'm still waiting to hear how you're doing all this good? You demanded an answer from me, but didn't reply. But then I'd imagine that's because you're barely out of high school and have as of yet had little interaction with the real world.
>So you still have no argument other than “feelings good quantifying bad”
Christ that was weak.
Couldn't actually muster any kind of response to any of the comment could you?
>And no, we have disgust reactions to things that aren’t bodily in nature...
You've not understood what I'm saying and I'd imagine therefore you don't understand the concept of disgust in politics either. You've just thrown it into the argument. More pseudo-intellectualism.
Did you know that 1000 blog post comments are worth a journal paper? And that a New York Time Bestseller is worth up to 1000 journal papers?
“Sorry about the famine, but the expected number of New York Times bestsellers is simply greater this way,” I say as I flip a giant switch that redirects millions of dollars of aid from Yemen to the University of Chicago department of economics.
Interesting. I may have to go back and re-evaluate some of my sneers in light of this.
To really evaluate the stupidity, looks like I need to exponentiate my rubric factors. That’s gonna lead to some massive numbers though.
World-class scholarship right here.
They’re really a one-trick pony. Take my pre-existing ideas, sprinkle a bit of math on them, and voila! They become objective truth. Come up with some new bullshit at least, jeeze.
I crunched the numbers, this blogpost is worth around -1 Q.
So creepy. Imagine living your life like this.