Talk:Effective altruism

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former good article nomineeEffective altruism was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
March 30, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
August 23, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Effective altruism/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xx78900 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, I'm gonna review this for you. I was only just thinking yesterday I was going to buy a book on this topic, so this seems like a nice intro for me.Xx78900 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of previous reviews

[edit]

Firstly, I'm going to take a quick look at the two failed noms, and check for unresolved issues.

Unresolved issues from GA 1

[edit]
  • In a similar but opposing view of the first reviewer, I think listing famous philanthropists in the lede is misplaced, and thinkers who coined / popularised the idea would be a better fit, such a Singer and MacEskill. As a whole I think the lede largely fails to summarise the article, spending too much time focusing on the actions of specific philanthropists and % dollar-growth, as opposed to a more general summary of concept.
There's some really great more detailed feedback on the lede below, which I will address later. That doesn't cover the "listing famous philanthropists" issue. Someone's fixed the famous philanthropists part (thank you!), and I will make a slight adjustment now, changing
* Prominent effective altruists include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill.
to be more specific:
* Prominent philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill.
The bit about dollar growth has also been removed by someone else (thanks again!). Marking this point  Done for now, with the expectation of further improvements to the lede when i get to the detailed feedback later.
Ruthgrace (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it should just list prominent members of the movement? And therefore should say Singer, MacAskill and Bankman-Fried, Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if you include SBF, you should include dustin moskovitz, and maybe the Gates and Elon Musk.... putting us where we were before the good article review. I'm fine either way but I do want to get this article to good article status. welcome to use your own judgement to edit the article directly and report back here Ruthgrace (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Effective altruist organizations such as Open Philanthropy prioritize evaluate causes by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework (ITN framework)." This is rewritten in accordance with the first review, but is still unwieldy. "prioritize evaluate"???
Here's another crack at it. Before:
* Effective altruist organizations such as Open Philanthropy prioritize evaluate causes by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework (ITN framework).
After:
* Effective altruist organizations prioritize cause areas by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework.
 Done (but let me know if you intended this comment to apply to the rest of the paragraph, too)
Ruthgrace (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Donation" section is still badly in need of a re-write.
 Deferred will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line which states that avoiding "careers that do significant direct harm, even if it seems like the negative consequences could be outweighed by donations. This is because the harms from such careers may be hidden or otherwise hard to measure", was re-written in accordance with GA1, but not particularly well. What is harm in this instance? This is still remarkably vague. There is a stand alone article, so this section doesn't have to be very long, but it should at least be clear in what its saying.
This concept isn't a part of the Earning to Give article, so I moved it there, and remove mention of it from this article, since it's a pretty specific concept to earning to give. I've also moved any other details from this section that weren't in the standalone article to the standalone article, and excerpted that article here. Marking  Done for now. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "effective animal welfare altruists" is still in the article, but I can't find it in either of the two cited sources.
I'm changing this to effective altruists since I think it's obvious from the context that these are effective altruists who care about animal welfare.  Done Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is no longer over-repetitive, but I find it highly questionable.
 Deferred will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved issues from GA 2

[edit]
  • A specific sentence is picked out as not needing seven citations, which it still has. I am glad to see the second reviewer mentioning this, as this was a big concern of mine while reading the article. It definitely and without question falls under WP:OVERCITE.
* Removed a citation about Good Ventures (primary source).
* Removed remaining primary source citations in History section. One on the singularity institute, one on the Giving What We Can history page, 80,000 hours about us page - these all have their own articles anyways. Another on Vox Future Perfect where there was already another citation from Vox. Deleted an FTX citation from The Economist where there was already another one from The Economist.
Ruthgrace (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* in impartiality section: removed a primary citation to Animal Charity Evaluators, and another from 80K about longtermism
* in cause prioritization section: removed some primary citations to 80K and Open Phil
* in cost-effectiveness section: removed some primary citations to Givewell and replaced with Doing Good Better book citation. removed a half sentence that cited the open phil blog.
* in counterfactual reasoning section: remove primary source citation to 80K where there's already another citation
Ruthgrace (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped recording each one here but I've removed primary sources and overcitations up until the end of the Cause Priorities section. More another time! Ruthgrace (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anti-capitalist and institutional critiques" was mentioned by the second reviewer as warranting it's own third level sub-heading, but all reference to such has been removed from the article, with no equivalent to replace it.

My own general comments

[edit]

Having now read the article in its entirety and having checked with the previous reviews and their comments, I'm going to be honest and say that I am extremely skeptical that this article can be brought up to standard within the next week, and as a result I am quickfailing it. There is simply too much missing/wrong here.

  • WP:OVERCITE is a big issue here.
  • The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.
  • I am also more generally concerned that the series box on the top is about evidence based practices as opposed to philosophies. Is Effective altruism purely a philanthropic venture? At the very least it should contain both an evidence based practices box and a philosophies box.
  • I think that this article puts too much focus on philanthropic practice and not nearly enough on its philosophical backing.
  • The body of this article is in places extremely lacking, and in others brimming with filler: I don't think a big list of notable organisations/individuals associated with Effective Altruism is either relevant or helpful here, it just bloats the article. I think a category, something like Category:Charities which practice effective altruism or something similar would be a better fit; failing that, a list article would do the job too.
  • Given that I think this article is a long was from passing, I'm not going to post as thorough a review as a GAN would typically receive. That said, if the issues mentioned are dealt with in a timely fashion, ping me and I will do a second, more thorough review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose is, in places, decidedly not clear, nor particularly concise. Also, why is (EA) in the opening sentence, when it's not used anywhere else? Is that even a thing?
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Fails WP:INTRO
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Some of the sources, such as those from [80000hours.org] are not independent of the subject, but rather advocate for its furthering and adoption. Also, though Singer is a Professor of Bioethics, I'm not sure that his pop-philosophy books should be quoted from, though I have no issue with his academic work being cited.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    The Philosophy section is far too short, the subsection suggested by the reviewer in the GA2 isn't included.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    It goes into unnecessary detail listing people / organisations involved, and also I'm unconvinced that the History section needs to include every work published by Singer, or the details of every relevant Vox article. Also, is the formation of a Facebook Group really notable? There's nothing formal about a facebook group.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    I haven't given this extensive though, but I agree with GA1 reviewer that this article reeds as though pushing an EA agenda.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The images lack alt captions
 Done I believe I have added an alt caption to the only picture on the article. Danihab (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Fail. The article has not resolved the issues raised at previous GANs, and moreover, is a very long way from being in GA condition.

Response

[edit]

Thanks for the GA review! I feel vindicated in my disapproval of the direction this article has taken in recent revisions. I agree with the reviewer that there is not nearly enough [emphasis] on its philosophical backing. The philosophy section was trimmed to the bone in recent revisions. Previous versions of the philosophy section may not have been adequate enough, but at least they had more content. The reviewer noted: "Anti-capitalist and institutional critiques" was mentioned by the second reviewer as warranting its own third level sub-heading, but all reference to such has been removed from the article, with no equivalent to replace it. This may have been part of the trend in recent revisions to strip out as much philosophy as possible. Biogeographist (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's strange that the philosophy section has been trimmed down a lot. The philosophy is such a core part of EA and it should be explained in as much detail as is reasonable. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The parts about being against systemic change have been moved to the cost effectiveness section, where I thought they were the most relevant.
I think it's important to be intentional about the contents of the philosophy section. I see that people think it should be longer but no one has mentioned a specific detail that is missing... Ruthgrace (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of the content in "Themes", particularly cause prio and cost-effectiveness, belong in the Philosophy section rather than the Practice section. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no qualms with moving content that is in other parts of the article into the philosophy section :) Ruthgrace (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Xx78900 thanks for the review! Really appreciate your time, and the feedback is super helpful. I do intend to keep working on this and will definitely take you up on your offer to tag you in for a more detailed review once we've addressed the current issues. Hope you don't mind me asking for a few clarifications to guide us as we continue to improve the article.

1. You said the donation section is badly in need of a rewrite. Can you explain what needs to be better? Is it difficult to read? Does it have the wrong content?

2. It seemed to me that the history section in previous versions was inaccurate and made it sound like effective altruism was started by Will MacAskill and CEA, ignoring other history such as the contributions of Singer, and I spent some time trying to fix this before going up for good article review again. What should be done to make it less "highly questionable"? Should parts of it be removed?

3. Can you explain a little more about what you think is wrong with the lede? Are there parts of the lede that should be cut? Parts of the article that should appear in the lede?

4. Can you give some examples of the kind of philosophical content that you think the article is missing?

5. Can you give some examples of parts of the article that are "extremely lacking" and "brimming with filler"?

6. Can you provide some sort of guideline or example to give us a better sense of what people and organizations should be mentioned and what shouldn't?

Finally, I want to note that I moved the anti-capitalist and institutional critiques (the subsection you mentioned was missing from Philosophy) to the end of the cost-effectiveness section, following WP:CRIT by folding it into where I thought it was the most relevant.

Thanks again! Ruthgrace (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ruthgrace, my apologies for the delay in responding to you, I've been v busy IRL this past week. I'll happily provide more comments.
  1. In regards the donation section, I must first admit my bias: usually I wouldn't mention my own politics, but as a socialist, the concept of altruistic donation as opposed to radical system change seems, to my eyes, a cop-out/vanity project, and so I may be overly critical in my analyses of this article. That not withstanding, my issues with this section are as follows:
  • "Many effective altruists..." - too vague. Who, or how many?
  • "... significant charitable donation." - What classifies it as significant? And without a benchmark, are we to assume that they do so to a greater extent than people who do not identify as effective altruists?
  • "Some believe..." - Same problem, who is some?
  • The wording of "alleviate suffering through donations" implies that the act of donating directly alleviates suffering.
  • "Some even lead a frugal lifestyle in order to donate more." - Again, vague. Who? How many is some? What typifies a frugal lifestyle?
  • I don't think listing some organisations affiliated with effective altruistic thought is the right way of handling things, certainly not in the manner it is done so here. Rather than give two examples in depth, maybe link to two big examples, and mention that there are others.
  • What is the balance of Toby Ord's income? Does he donate a pound or a million pounds? Has the amount changed with inflation?
  • More generally, this section talks about how people donate "effectively", but then just lists how much they donate. What makes some donation "effective", and some ineffective?
  • Also as a general point, listing people who have made a lot of money and plan to donate it, doesn't seem very different from bog-standard philanthropy, and this section doesn't explain the difference at all.
Xx78900 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is great feedback and I'll be slowly addressing the points one by one over the coming weeks. Thank you!! Ruthgrace (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So EA is for systemic change. But I don't know how to write this in the article in a way that will be acceptable https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5XeCA5gKbMakAskLy/effective-altruists-love-systemic-change Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2:
  • Where does the first sentence of the history section fit into the context of the history of the movement? Again one of the biggest problems with this article, it's just namedropping people but not explaining their relevance. To be more specific, this man "anticipated" many of the ideas. How so, and in what context? Has he been identified as advocating a philosophy that might be considered a proto-effective altruism?
  • Several communities? This is vague to the point of being almost devoid of meaning imo. Moreover, I don't understand what the purpose of the bullet point list is, if not to name drop institutions linked to EA.
  • The Facebook Group is a meaningless metric. Anyone can found a facebook group.
  • Why list all of Singer's books? They don't belong here.
  • "As the movement formed"? Why is the formation of the ideology so far into its history section? Also what defines it as a "movement"?
  • Really, most of this section is just a list of things related to EA, instead of exploring the history of EA as a school of thought, how its aspects have grown and changed. The history of its popularity is not irrelevant, but its not properly explored here.
  • Is "Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues" a book or a journal? Is it necessary to list every book on the topic here?
  • I find it highly questionable because I find it largely not an exploration of the history of movement at all, just a list of things that are related to it arranged chronologically.
Xx78900 (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the history of effective altruism is essentially that several related communities felt a need to create a larger movement, and ended up converging together into what is now capital letter Effective Altruism. The bullet point is that list of communities. Separately, Singer also encouraged followers of his work (who were not part of a specific community) to be a part of effective altruism. Do you have any advice on how to convey this better in the article? Ruthgrace (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if it's all background (and it seems to be) I'd drop it, or if you can refine it, label it as Background, not History. It is the background to the movement, not the history of it. I would much prefer to see the history of the development of the ideology, how it has grown and evolved, and different theorists different opinions on / interpretations of it. Xx78900 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Lede
  • Is it a social movement? As in, is it labelled such by independent sources, not the advocates of the idea of EA? Because it seems (to me) to be too scattered and individual, lacking widespread adoption, and most importantly, without a clear goal, to be a social movement.
  • There's nothing overly challengeable in the lede, so I would move all citations to the body, bar that for the quotation.
  • That said, I personally amn't mad on the notion of opening the definition with a quote. It's not 'wrong' per se, and it certainly wouldn't interfere with a future GA nom, but I would prefer a simple explanation and this quote to be in the body.
  • I think effective altruists should be bolded, not in italics.
  • "Significant charitable donation" again, I hate the word 'significant' here. If it was back up in the body it would be one thing, and I actually think it would be appropriate, but as I've said above, I don't believe it is.
  • "good" should be wikilinked. It should also be defined in the body, but in the lede it's fine to just leave it as is, thought it is such an open-ended term.
  • Not sure if it's necessary or even helpful to have the link around "cause priorities". I expected it to explain what cause priorities were, not bring to the list of specific priorities within EA.
  • I would also phrase it as something like "the promotion of global health and develeopment and animal welfare, and mitigating risks to .."
  • Wikilink "impartiality"
  • Don't italicise EA at the end of the lede, put it in inverted commas, 'effective altruism'. Should it be name, or phrase?
4. What is lacking in philosophy
  • Now first of all it is important to note that I am far from an expert on EA philosophy or theory, so take this with a pinch of salt. Also, I would like to mention that this section is substantially improved from when I faield the review but it is still lacking.
  • Though this article mentions utilitarianism in passing, I fail to see how EA is compatible with it - it seems to me to be altogether subordinate to it, as in it seems to me that EA is a form of utilitarianism.
  • Why is Christianity specified? Is it many, or Christianity?
  • "Effective altruism can also be in tension with religion insofar as religion emphasizes spending resources on worship and evangelism instead of causes that do the most good." I have massive problems with this sentence. Once again I ask, religion, or Christianity? Even within Christianity, what about good works focused denominations such as Methodism? Moreover, what is the most good? We have no more access to that truth than anyone, and to say that evangelism isn't "good" would be hotly contested by people who are Christian, who may argue it is the most good one can do.
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
  • You should probably mention veganism alongside factory farming, particularly given the emphasis on Singer in this article.
  • Make an explicit link between cause neutrality and impartiality.
  • Also, forgive me potentially misunderstanding the opening paragraph: It seems to me that the implication is that EA donors don't pay as much attention to effectiveness or evidence as non-profits, even if the on-profits are limited in their scope.
  • What's an "evaluate cause"? Or should it say that they prioritize evaluating causes
  • Neglectedness could be better explained
  • "into the scale" into is the wrong preposition
  • Counter factual reasoning shouldnt be linked if it just goes to ten lines underneath
  • What is the importance of each of the components related to gathering information? Also, "The information required may require", should say something like "Collecting the information required may necessitate..."
  • "disability-adjusted life years (DALY) reduced per dollar" Reduced or extended?
  • The second paragraph of Cost-effectiveness reads like it belongs in a criticism section. Why isn't there a criticism section anyway? Without it, this article doesn't offer a full WP:NPOV
  • "Since there is a high supply of candidates for such positions, however, ..."
  • !!! "it makes sense" !!! Wikipedia does not advocate this position!
  • The last line of counterfactual reasoning isnt sufficiently explained
  • The whole counterfactual reasoning section is too narrow in its focus on that one specific example.
More to follow. Xx78900 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is fantastic. i will start addressing feedback items one by one from the top. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether or not effective altruists should consider difficult-to-measure but potentially high-impact interventions such as institutional or structural change remains controversial."

[edit]

This isn't true. I'm unsure what evidence is admissable here, but I can provide 10s of millions of dollars of funding towards institutional and structural change:

- pandemic preparedness candidates. https://puck.news/inside-s-b-f-s-12-million-long-shot/

- shifting philanthropy to focus on outcomes

- givedirectly pushing cash transfers

- the uptake of antimalarials and deworming worldwide. Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate number of active members

[edit]

I hesitate to remove "With approximately 7,000 people active in the effective altruism community" from the introduction. Not that the source is unreliable, but I just don't think these approximations can be very precise, notably given that it's unclear how to determine if someone is active in the community. On the other hand, even an imprecise approximation may be considered relevant information for readers. Alenoach (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That bothers me as well. If possible, it would be good to add some qualification about how the EA community was defined to arrive at that number. Biogeographist (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the source since it's pay walled. The figure may be based on the number of adherents to Giving what we can in 2022. I think it's probably better to just remove it from the introduction and perhaps add later in the article the number of pledgers to Giving what we can. Alenoach (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed it.Essence of nightshade (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

Please @Alenoach, explain to me why the changings I made in the introduction are not 'factual' and why is the simplest version better, while even lacking the MoS instruction to justify the notability of the subject. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JoaquimCebuano, I'm not saying that it's not factual, but I think that the previous one was particularly efficient at succinctly presenting the topic while avoiding vague language. Whether one approves or not what EA does in practice, the quote describes what they are advocating for.
Regarding notability, the third paragraph already covers the growth and influence of effective altruism, so I think that this introduction already covers why the topic is considered notable. Alenoach (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Beginning from the simplest, i cant see what or how the third paragraph says about 'the growth and influence of effective altruism', from my perspective it says nothing. It merely talks about the origin, then the influential theorists, then elite universities/silicon valley ties. This has really nothing to do with notability. This cannot be compared with my addition at the end of the first paragraph.
2) While not prohibited or anything, quotes are to be treated with caution, following the MoS, a quote in the first phrase is not an ideal form for an encyclopedic introduction. Now, the content of the quote is really problematic, it says barely nothing, again. "using evidence and reason" is a poor definition for anything, and the quote in question doesnt say much beyond it. This merely endorses the vulgar EA talking point that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers. None of these terms are qualified by the quote nor the remaining paragraphs, and i think this fails both the demand of summarization and impartiality. I cant see the purpose of prioritizing simpleness and conciseness when it fails to inform. In my rephrasing I attempted to state that their criteria of accuracy for evidence and rationality are self-defined, as well as mentioning some central concepts.
I am open to chances in the modification made, but maintaining it as it is right now strikes me as unreasonable, given the partial endorsement and the poverty of the definition. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:LEDE applies in that we should be succinct as possible. For an encyclopedia entry about a philosophy, we should probably just focus on what it is advocating and why, which seems fine enough.
If folk want more details, they can read the rest of the article. We don't need to worry about including the growth and influence of EA unless if its a notable part of the article.
IDK if the quote in a first sentence is a good way to start an article, as a rule, but it doesn't seem that long of a quote. Not sure if its advocating, but agree its a poor definition. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe...
Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates impartially calculating benefits and prioritizing causes to provide the greatest good.
Its short, succinct, neutral, and uses the section headings from the article to lead the viewer to understand what EA is about. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, yet i think that 1) it should be stated that the movement defines their criteria of rationality or calculation as well as 'good' because these are not plain concepts at all; and 2) i think it should be characterized as philanthropic, because this is what it is, a philosophy for philanthropy and a philanthropical network; 3) the information at the end of the paragraph should be reinstated, even if in a briefer version. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates a form of philanthropy based on evidences regarded as scientifically accurate as well as its interpretation by defined criteria of rationality, which involves concepts of impatiality, effectiveness and the so-called cause priorization. The community around effective altruism, whose participants are sometimes called effective altruists, pursue a variety of approaches examined and defined within the movement, which range from a selective donation effort to charities, some of them founded by reputed effective altruists themselves, as well as the choice careers with the aim of maximizing positive impact, among others. The movement has achieved significant popularity outside the academy since 2010, spurring the creation of university-​based institutes, research centers, advisory organizations and charities, which, collectively, have donated several hundreds of millions of dollars. EA has a specially influential status within animal advocacy.

I cant see a problem in this, only in the structure of 'as well as its interpretation', which could be better indeed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but my modification didnt made the introduction less succinct, i mostly rewrited the quote and added the notability information at the end. The lede is vague now, terribly vague to be honest, and biased. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I don't think there is a big issue with notability in this introduction, or that the third paragraph would have nothing to do with EA's notability.
2) The phrase "using evidence and reason" may seem basic, but it can be a distinguishing feature in the philanthropic landscape. Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making. Organizations like GiveWell exemplify EA's emphasis on analysis and evidence-based approaches.
The quote "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis" is widely used by EA organizations to define EA.[1] The language used does not appear excessively vague, loaded or self-serving, especially compared to stated philanthropic goals in general. We could remove the reference to "Effective altruism: introduction" if desired.
Even though I prefer to keep the quote since it is notable and subtly phrased, Bluethricecreamman's opening sentence is also good: "Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates impartially calculating benefits and prioritizing causes to provide the greatest good." Alenoach (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something widely used is not necessarily defining, this quote is vague, loaded and self-serving. "Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making", thats your POV right there, the article shouldnt assume it as plain as that. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoaquimCebuano: Your profile says that you are Brazilian, so you may not be familiar with the "charity landscape" in the US, where I live. The mailbox of my mother, who also lives in the US, is deluged with a vast quantity of mailings full of emotional appeals from charities. The statement "Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making" is certainly true for the US context. However, your previous statement above about the vulgar EA talking point that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers is not true. It is not true that all non-EA charities rely on such appeals, and the CEA definition of effective altruism does not imply that, and I have never read anything in the EA literature that makes such a hyperbolic claim. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This claim, attributed to EA, has been often voiced by other activists who interacted with effective altruists, especially in animal advocacy circles. This is remarked in the book published by Oxford, The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does. But you are right, I dont know the US scenario. However, i think the discordance might come from something more radical - I think we think of different things when talking about this. Charity might imply one set of institutions and activists, while I emphasized 'philanthropy' in my edition, because i think philanthropy implies a more broad and less charged meaning. More importantly, I think philanthropy is closer (than charity) to humanitarianism, which implies a structured and long term kind of effort. As far as I understand, EA has a small but significant presence in what can be described as humanitarian agencies, at least this has been discussed in EA forums and has also been mentioned in UN related sites, among other sources. Thats the main reason why i dont think its fair nor precise to use this calculative-emotional distinction, because non-EA ideologies of humanitarian-philanthropy aid cant be described by this polarity.
So, in resume, I stand by the claim of a possible yet not intrinsic bias of EA against other conceptions of philanthropy, and I think the article would gain from a more general conception of humanitarian-philanthropy aid when trying to establish EA specificity. My point is that, rigorously speaking (and this article demands a philosophical rigor by its own identification as philosophy) it should be made explicit, in the introduction, that EA established its own criteria of 'reason' and 'evidence', because neither of these terms are evident in themselves, and can be highly charged when used plainly - thats is not to say that the current version of the first paragraph isnt significantly better than the previous one. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, JoaquimCebuano. Re: i dont think its fair nor precise to use this calculative-emotional distinction, because non-EA ideologies of humanitarian-philanthropy aid cant be described by this polarity. I think that's a good criticism; do you have a reliable source that clearly makes that critique? I'm not convinced that the lead section is the place to mention that, but the "Philosophy" section would be a good place for it if there is a source.
Another way of framing what I think you are pointing toward is that EA has assumptions that need to be made more explicit. Have you seen Scott Alexander's blog post "Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions" (2022)? He analyzes EA assumptions into 5 increasingly controversial (or controvertible) levels or "floors" of assumptions, and he argues (as I recall) that the most foundational assumptions are quite simple. That is one way of thinking about the vagueness of the CEA definition: it's vague because it's the most basic level. That is not to deny that the prominent philosophers of EA would interpret that basic level in terms of the higher-level assumptions that should be made explicit, but even among effective altruists there would not be unanimity in the interpretation of that basic level, that is, in the extra assumptions that people use to interpret that basic level. Biogeographist (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biogeographist Thats the point, I really think there is much more that need to be made explicit, independently of any discussions around criticism. I will look at this article and also search for some more before proposing any other change. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that in the last review of this article the reviewer pointed the WP:OVERCITE issue and said that "The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.". JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you mentioned the WP:OVERCITE essay; that issue mentioned in 2022 seems to have been largely resolved. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the quotation of the CEA definition that is endorsed by multiple organizations was chosen after discussion here: Talk:Effective altruism/Archive 2#Definition of Effective Altruism. But I think it is important to address the issues that JoaquimCebuano raised, at least the valid issues. As I said above, I don't think it's true that the CEA definition implies that everyone but them [effective altruists] are emotional, even passional decision makers as JoaquimCebuano claimed, so I don't think that's a valid issue. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amount donated

[edit]

I attempted to delete this: "[...] , which, collectively, have donated several hundreds of millions of dollars." I don't have a precise number or good reliable sources to provide for how much EA organizations have donated, but it seems underestimated by an order of magnitude. Even just considering Open Philanthropy, when you sum all the donations in the spreadsheet,[2] it amounts to $3.2 billion, which is consistent with what is written in the Wikipedia article Open Philanthropy. I don't have access to the book, perhaps it's inaccurate or phrased in a particular way? Alenoach (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The books states this exact amount. But I agree that we should change if there is a secondary source determinating the amount donated by organizations such as open philanthropy, I just think its important to speak something amount values, given that this is a good, even the main indication of EA notability. I will try to search something today. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative political implications

[edit]

New source: Taillandier, A., Stephens, N., & Vanderslott, S. (2025). "Effective altruism, technoscience and the making of philanthropic value". Economy and Society, 1–25.

Critics have found EA philanthropy to be mostly conservative: despite its ‘willingness to challenge the status quo’ (Future of Life Institute, Citation2016), it dilutes philosophical ideas into ‘an empowering investment opportunity’ (Srinivasan, Citation2015), focuses on individual donations rather than political advocacy and institutional action aiming at structural change (Blunt Citation2022; Herzog, Citation2016; Lechterman, Citation2022; Saunders-Hastings, Citation2019), and assumes a ‘rescue’ idea of philanthropy with deep depoliticizing and paternalist effects (Deveaux, Citation2021, pp. 48–79). Sociologists have described EA as the latest iteration of ‘philanthrocapitalism’ – a mode of philanthropic action privileging donations to for-profits and interventions into domains with high expected returns, manifesting the extension of market-based methods and private funding priorities to traditional spheres of state intervention, such as health and development (Eikenberry & Mirabella, Citation2017; McGoey & Thiel, Citation2018). While evidence-based philanthropy is not a new phenomenon, philanthrocapitalism also manifests the incursion of ‘high-net-worth individuals’ from the technology sector in a space traditionally dominated by large foundations (Depecker et al., Citation2018; Haydon et al., Citation2021; McGoey Citation2012a, Citation2015). EA actors themselves, calling for alliances with other actors in the charity sector, have noted the tensions arising from such reconfigurations of the philanthropic field (Gabriel Citation2017). Our study contributes to clarifying how structural transformations in philanthropy affect giving practices, institutions and rhetoric."

Should this source be added? Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Scholarly source and squarely on-topic.Essence of nightshade (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, a good way to know the opinion of a community on a particular topic is to have a poll. The only poll about political opinions in EA that I know of, done in 2022, shows 76.6% of left-leaning members and only 2.9% of right-leaning members. If the results were the opposite, it would seem ok to say they are convervatives. But that's more than twenty times more left-leaning people than right-leaning.
In this other discussion, you responded that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. But the information on the poll seems easily verifiable, and unless one believes it's a grand conspiracy, there isn't much reason to doubt the raw data of this poll. Moreover, I'm not asking to include the source in the article, just to consider it in the context of this discussion. We shouldn't include false claims in the article simply because we refuse to consider evidence of the contrary. Alenoach (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Polls can be biased in many ways quite easily; one doesn't need to assume a grand conspiracy to doubt them. I don't see a particular need to avoid "false" claims about movement politics in this case, where we have strong sourcing. I'm also not sure that the self-identification demographics you provide constitute evidence against the source's claims about the activities of the movement at large. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it was simply a question about political orientations, with the answers "Left", "Center left", "Center", "Center right", "Right", "Libertarian", "Other". Virtually any adult understands what "Right" and "Left" means in a political context. The answer "Right" in particular got 0.7% only, and "Center right" 2.2%. "Left" got 36.8% and "Center left" got 39.8%. The results are similar to those in the 2019 survey. If EAs were politically oriented on the right, they surely wouldn't like to be misrepresented as being leftists. Alenoach (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. I haven't yet found in the EaS source a claim that EAs are individually right-leaning. You also oversimplify political labels; they may mean different things to different people. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thats an online poll on the forum board of the effective altruism website. It isn't really reliable. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include. The journal appears to be peer-reviewed. If necessary, the perspective could be attributed in prose. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be attributed.Essence of nightshade (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the source only uses "conservative" when describing how others have characterized EA. Its own conclusions focus on the movement advancing its worldview and changing the philanthropic status quo. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth including if attributed. But it would seem misleading to summarize the quoted "mostly conservative" criticism in any way that implies that Effective Altruism is part of Conservatism in the United States or shares any of its current major political goals. Rather, it seems pretty obvious (e.g. from the "despite" at the beginning) that this passage uses "conservative" in the sense of Effective Altruism insufficiently questioning the status quo - e.g. not engaging in the kind of efforts to dismantle capitalism or other aspects of current societal structures that progressive scholars like Deveaux favor (whose cited publication is titled "Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements"). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket deletion by GreyFell

[edit]

Hello, GreyFell. I'm not sure why you completely removed all references to effective altruism's influence within elite universities (I found multiple books and online internet resources acknowledging explicitly this) when it's conceded even by people within the movement. You also seem to think that it's a "compliment" when elitism is one of the most common criticisms of the movement.

At the very least, a majority of the edit should be restored until the rest is figured out, since both the "list of universities" where it is particularly influential in and praises/criticism have been mentioned readily online. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not listing Centre for Effective Altruism, Future of Life Institute, Open Philanthropy, Against Malaria Foundation, Givewell, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Giving Multiplier, and Giving What We Can in the lead (or anyone else in the article) makes no sense.
EA people's focus (or obsession to critics) on AI safety risk is also widely noted. It does a disservice to the reader if none of this is mentioned.
I don't doubt that people have described the movement as having trouble in 2022 with Sam Bankman-Fried but people influenced by or directly considering themselves members of the movement are now running/influencing/historically influenced Anthropic, OpenAI, Safe Superintelligence, Google DeepMind, and many other frontier AI companies. To call this critical information (often criticized) is an understated.
I don't doubt that the changes could also be improved but it's a clear step up. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The increasing division is explicitly mentioned here too. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major colleges are listed here and in other books about the subject manner. All agree that it thrives in elite, historic institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc.) tech schools (Cal Tech), and American-British flagship/major schools (Wisconsin, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.).
Not sure what is being disputed. Seems uncontroversial and clearly important enough to include as a foundational introduction to the movement. The movement recruits heavily in universities and all of those universities are repeatedly mentioned in secondary/third sources. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the pitfalls of making major changes like this. Incremental changes with edit summaries are much easier to evaluate, but even that wouldn't necessarily be sufficient. Sorry, but I do not agree that it's a clear step up, or I wouldn't have reverted. There is room for improvement, but there are multiple issues which make this massive change too difficult to triage.
Examples need to come from reliable, independent sources. Further, this needs to be summarized neutrally, without editorializing. Listing these in the lead is just too much. It reads as name-dropping and provides no context. Adding long lists like this decreases readability for little benefit to readers. Further, the lead is generally intended to be a summary of the body, so expanding the lead while removing the paragraph on Bankman-Fried diminishes the lead.
Further, there is a WP:DUE issue. The mere existence of a student group is not encyclopedically noteworthy even if it can be sourced. It appears that many of these sources are too weak for these details. Some are blogs. Some are just flimsy. This Vox article for example mentions Ohio State once, in passing, as the home school of one prominent academic. It doesn't link the school itself to EA as a defining trait that belongs in the lead of the article. If there is an inherent connection between EA and Ohio State, cite a reliable source which says that directly, not one that sort-of arguably implies it. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for the Washington Post article which mentions schools, it's fine, but what does it actually say? It's not just about Effective Altruism. It's about AI doomerism specifically: More recently, wealthy tech philanthropists have begun recruiting an army of elite college students to prioritize the fight against rogue AI over other threats. It also mentions Bankman-Fried, which you removed from the lead. To cite a source like this, you need to summarize what it says. To merely use it to name-drop a bunch of schools is squandering the source and adding noise instead of signal. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be alright if I or you restored everything except for the full list of universities (fair enough, I can see how that's subjective) and simply listing in the lead that it is "popular among elite universities"? That seems fair and balanced. The Washington Post lists Harvard, Georgia Tech, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, New York University, and UC Berkeley as hubs for EA-influenced AI safety. Oxford and Cambridge are also obviously notable as well. I added Ohio State University because it's listed as the largest EA group in the United States along with Wisconsin and Harvard (which were already listed). If we're going to be more strict we should imo at least mention Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, Cal Tech, and UC Berkeley. I don't care particularly one way or the other though.
The criticism of Bankman-Fried is real but only in the sense of the movement being tied to billionaires. The lead already seemed unbalanced towards criticism v. praise that I'm not sure is justified. (Even in the version I edited it to.) It just seems like an infodump of controversy. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? I'm sure you can further improve it but it clearly seems better. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's often easier to evaluate these changes as "diffs".
The lead already says "Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities..." (Honestly, I don't think this is good wording, but to avoid edit warring I'm going to wait a bit before even thinking about changing that.)
I think this proposal includes some more positive changes, but there are still vagueness and neutrality issues with the wording. "Elite" is at least theoretically falsifiable, but "prestigious" is just a peacock-word. Likewise, how much influence quantifies as "significant" influence, and who is doing the measuring? How deep is "deeply"? The use of these terms in this way is a subtle form of editorializing. Wikipedia articles should be written in a formal tone, so what sounds conversational isn't always appropriate. Unfortunately, this article and its neighbors already have a lot of WP:TONE issues. A lot. I have my theories as to why, but regardless, it is better not to add to the problem.
The sentence 'The 2020s saw the Effective Altruist community grow more prominent, and larger, but also more divided and less cohesive.' is interesting (and I don't disagree), but it's way, way too ambiguous for the lead of the article. This description is either so vague it's kind of meaningless, or it's a subjective claim. I'm not really sold that the included quote from the Vox source directly supports this summary, either (but I do appreciate the inclusion of a quote).
Like it or not, most reliable sources which give an overview of EA mention the controversies, specifically Bankman-Fried. This includes both the Vox article and the Washington Post article you've cited. I agree that this should be explained better, but tucking this away into a clause of a sentence that also mentions how it has been "praised" isn't going to work. If nothing else, disinterested readers are likely to view this as false balance. If they read sources which mention Bankman-Fried, or Nick Bostrom's view on race and IQ, or anything at all about Musk's involvement, and then check Wikipedia and only see some bland waffle about 'perceived elitism' in the lead, they will understandably be annoyed with Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell's judgment in this discussion looks pretty good to me. FavourNSpice is making some rookie editor mistakes. Regarding the sentence that Grayfell mentioned above and that begins "Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities..." and currently says in full:
Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities in the United States and Britain, and Silicon Valley has become a key centre for the "longtermist" submovement, with a tight subculture there.[1]
The ancestor of this sentence was added in this November 2023 edit, where it said (notice that "ties" was not modified by "strong" in the first version):
With approximately 7,000 adherents and ties to the elite schools in the United States and Britain, effective altruism has strongly become associated with Silicon Valley and the technology industry.[1]
The author of the sentence added "strong" to "ties" in this edit a few hours later. Apparently she liked the word "strong", as the sentence now had two instances of it. In this edit a month later, I noticed the two instances of "strong" in the same sentence and removed one of them but in retrospect should have removed both. Biogeographist (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also point out that there is a nice list of EA-affiliated organizations in the {{Effective altruism}} template. That template section basically serves the function that FavourNSpice says is missing from the article. I'm not sure that such an index needs to be duplicated in the article. Biogeographist (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Tiku, Nitasha (2022-11-17). "The do-gooder movement that shielded Sam Bankman-Fried from scrutiny". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2022-11-25.

Sexual abuse, cult-like traits, racism

[edit]

Why are all downplayed on the page?

EA has had significant problems with all three.Critic79 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of coverage that a topic gets in Wikipedia articles depends on how thoroughly covered it was in the literature. The event with Sam-Bankman Fried was definitely a major event, and gets its subsection. The event with sexual misconducts accusations is also covered, even though the coverage was smaller. There are also various critiques and counter-arguments presented throughout the articles. Accusations of racism seem relatively rare in the mediatic coverage of effective altruism. Alenoach (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from Molly White's substack, so forgive me if there's a misconception I have about the rules.
The article, for the moment, uncritically regurgitates the description given by Effective Altruists themselves. There's widespread skepticism that their donations are actually the most efficient way of calculating utility.
Longtermism is the movement's dominant faction and has been criticized for placing undue emphasis on issues such as AI, the hypothetical suffering of insects, and priorities that tend to appeal to the movement's overwhelmingly white, male, and tech oriented demographics. For instance, their positions on AI are out of line with the viewpoints of most mainsteam AI researchers, who are skeptical of AGI or a superintelligent AI anytime in the foreseeable future.
It is more fair if we state that's what they claim rather than making a position on whether they live up to it.
Mentions of the movement being a cult have also been throughly scrubbed from the page. This is problematic as almost every major survey or analysis of the movement mentions that it has been widely described as a cult or displays "cult-like" traits.
Racism is also well-attested. The New Statesman criticized the effective-altruism movement, saying that it is “ideological cover for racism and sexism.” Similar critiques are found in many books. EA members have repeatedly claimed that Australian Aboriginals, Africans, South Asians, Natives of the Americas, and Polynesians are less intelligent on average than whites (and sometimes Asians and Jews). Nick Bostrom, a leading EA philosopher, made comments near-uniformly described as racist.
There's a stunning array of reports about endemic sexual abuse, polygamy (usually an unequal "polygyny" of an older male and multiple younger females), grooming of teenagers, and psychological manipulation of female members within, alongside ideological and moral support for sex with teenagers and young adults (16-21) and older men. (35+)
To have all of this not mentioned once strains credibility. Critic79 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally believe that EA has those issues, but also Wikipedia isn't about what we believe, its about following policy rules.
  • WP:RELIABLE means we want to pick the most reliable sourcing. A substack counts as WP:SPS, which is considered somewhat weaker than other sourcing, and though Molly White has done much research on this, there are probably better sourcing.
  • WP:DUE matters. Its important to note the criticism, but when a person comes to this page, they are looking to see what this topic means. We need to be an encyclopedia first, and that means presenting what this movement says it means first. We want to think about what informs the person first.
  • Wikipedia isn't really about the truth. Its about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If you could, could you compile a list of sourcing that supports your position?
Of note, Molly White is an admin on Wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Politico outright states it...
Noah Berlatsky (1), Émile P. Torres (2), Christoph Schuringa (p. 248 to 250 of A Social History of Analytic Philosophy), Adam Becker's book More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, and other resources mention.
1.) Endemic culture of sexual abuse, male-dominated polygynous relationships with teenagers/young adults, harem-type dynamics/polycules.
2.) Mentions that it is commonly referred to as a "cult" or "cult-like".
3.) Endemic racism and sexism within the community.
4.) Disputes on whether the EA ecosystem is maximizing utility. Currently, the article (and articles related to it) just repeat what they claim. I request that some of this is attributed rather than uncritically cited.
5.) Dominance by white men in the compsci, econ, polisci, or math fields.
6.) How some of the assumptions made by EA to calculate utility are disputed by a majority of mainstream scientists/philosophers/ethicists.
7.) How criticism of EA ties into criticism of its related philosophies. A lot of this is glossed over... Critic79 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NYT: The effective altruism movement heavily overlaps with Rationalism, a movement that at its core is an endeavor to think better. Rationalists, whose aspirations are evident in names like LessWrong, a community forum, and Overcoming Bias, the New York City meet-up group, try to minimize cognitive errors and constantly “update” their “cached” opinions based on new information. In part because of the community’s devotion to open-mindedness, it attracts high numbers of trans and neurodivergent people. For the same reason, some participants flirt with extreme right ideology. Like the tech world more generally, the community is male-dominated and has been accused of encouraging norms of social and sexual freedom that provide cover for abusive behavior. Critic79 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/zizians-group-disappearance.html Critic79 (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]