Book by STEFAN SCHUBERT &  LUCIUS CAVIOLA

Context

Earlier this year, @Stefan_Schubert & @Lucius Caviola published Effective Altruism and the Human Mind: The Clash Between Impact and Intuition the first book-length examination of the psychology of effective altruism.  This isn't a review but it's a great book and I expect it to become an indispensable (oft-cited) resource for practitioners in the EA ecosystem.

Assuming that other busy altruists might not have time to read the full 65,000 word version, I created a 5,000 word summary with the help of Claude Sonnet 3.5 that aims to distill the most important ideas and takeaways. Having compared it to the original text and my own notes I think it’s a good summary and could be very useful for some. It’s not perfect—but as the book itself reminds us in Chapter 9—a focus on perfection can be counterproductive!

The full book is available for purchase at Oxford University Press, as a free PDF, and as an audiobook thanks to @Aaron Bergman here: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, RSS.

Appreciation

We owe Schubert & Caviola a great deal for writing such a useful book and owe Caviola even more for doing so much of the supporting research. It all sheds essential light onto an otherwise dark region of our collective understanding.

I am humbled by their contributions (and those documented in the book) and merely seek to multiply the impact of that great work by making it slightly more accessible. Enjoy!

Contents

PART I. OBSTACLES

1. The Norms of Giving
2. Neglecting the Stakes
3. Distant Causes and Nearsighted Feelings
4. Tough Prioritizing
5. Misconceptions About Effectiveness

PART II. INTERVENTIONS

1. Information, Nudges, and Incentives
2. Finding the Enthusiasts
3. Fundamental Value Change
4. Effective Altruism for Mortals

PART I. OBSTACLES

1. The Norms of Giving

The chapter begins by contrasting how people make decisions in different domains of life. For example, when choosing a restaurant, people typically rely on subjective preferences and personal taste. In contrast, when making investment decisions for retirement, people tend to defer to objective data and expert advice. The authors then pose the question: How do people approach decisions when trying to do good in the world?

Research by Jonathan Berman and colleagues is presented, showing that most people approach charitable giving more like choosing a restaurant than making an investment decision. They tend to base their choices on personal feelings and preferences rather than objective measures of effectiveness. This tendency persists even when people are explicitly told that one charity is more effective than another.

The chapter explores several reasons for this approach to charitable giving:

1. Personal Connections: People often experience a personal connection with specific causes, leading them to support these causes even if they're not the most effective.
2. Urgency: More urgent problems, like disaster relief, tend to evoke stronger emotional responses than ongoing issues, even if the latter might be more cost-effective to address.
3. Failure to Research Effectiveness: Only a small percentage of donors research multiple charities before donating, with many making quick, spontaneous decisions based on gut instincts.

The authors argue that these factors contribute to a norm where emotional appeal takes precedence over effectiveness in charitable giving. This norm is reinforced by societal expectations - most people don't criticize others for prioritizing causes they care about over more effective alternatives.

The chapter then delves into the philosophical distinction between obligatory and supererogatory actions. Charitable giving is generally viewed as supererogatory - praiseworthy but not morally required. This perception contributes to the idea that donors are free to choose any cause they like, rather than being obligated to select the most effective options.

The authors present research showing that people's sense of moral obligation to help effectively is influenced by several factors:

• The presence of other potential helpers
• Whether the help is seen as voluntary or part of a professional responsibility
• The perceived urgency of the situation

The chapter also discusses philosophical arguments for obligations to donate effectively, including Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" argument and Theron Pummer's case for effectiveness given that one has decided to donate.

An important section of the chapter focuses on social incentives for helping effectively. The authors note that while society generally celebrates the act of giving, there's much less emphasis on the effectiveness of that giving. They explore several reasons for this:

• Quantity of help is more easily observable and evaluable than effectiveness
• Large donations or sacrifices are seen as clearer evidence of altruistic character
• People may be suspicious of donors who approach giving in a calculating manner

The chapter concludes by discussing the concept of "aversion to waste." While people don't always prioritize effectiveness, they do care about avoiding obvious waste in charitable giving. This explains why many donors are concerned about overhead costs, even though these aren't necessarily good indicators of effectiveness.

Key takeaways

• Most people approach charitable giving based on personal feelings and preferences rather than objective measures of effectiveness.
• There's a strong societal norm that supports giving based on emotional connection rather than effectiveness.
• Charitable giving is generally seen as supererogatory (praiseworthy but not obligatory), which reduces the perceived need to maximize effectiveness.
• Social incentives tend to reward the quantity of giving more than its effectiveness.
• People's sense of obligation to help effectively is influenced by factors like the presence of other helpers and the perceived urgency of the situation.
• While people aren't always focused on effectiveness, they do have an aversion to obvious waste in charitable giving.
• Changing norms around charitable giving to emphasize effectiveness could significantly increase the impact of altruistic efforts.

2. Neglecting the Stakes

The chapter begins by drawing a parallel between investing and charitable giving, pointing out that while investors spend considerable time searching for the most promising companies, the same level of diligence is often not applied to charitable donations. The authors then pose a crucial question: How large are the differences in effectiveness between various ways of doing good?

To answer this question, the authors conducted a series of surveys comparing laypeople's and experts' beliefs about charity effectiveness. They focused on charities addressing global poverty and defined effectiveness in terms of lives saved per given amount of money. The survey results revealed a stark contrast:

• Laypeople estimated that the most effective charities were only 1.5-2 times more effective than average charities.
• Experts, however, estimated that the most effective charities were about 100 times more effective than average charities.

This huge discrepancy highlights a critical misconception among the general public about the potential impact of their charitable giving. The authors argue that this underestimation of effectiveness differences is a major reason why people don't prioritize finding the most effective charities or do more research to identify them.

The chapter then delves into the reasons behind these vast differences in effectiveness:

1. Problem selection: Some problems are much easier to make progress on than others.
2. Method selection: Some methods are far more effective at addressing a given problem.

To illustrate this, the authors compare two interventions addressing blindness:

• Trachoma prevention and treatment in developing countries (highly cost-effective)
• Training guide dogs in developed countries (much less cost-effective)

The authors introduce the concept of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a metric for comparing health interventions. They explain that the most effective global health interventions can be thousands of times more cost-effective than the least effective ones. Moreover, they describe how the distribution of intervention effectiveness follows a "heavy-tailed" pattern, with a small number of interventions being orders of magnitude more effective than most others.

The chapter then explores why people underestimate these differences in effectiveness:

1. Lack of market pressure: Unlike in consumer markets, there's little pressure on charities to become more effective or be driven out of business.
2. Misguided analogies: People may incorrectly assume that differences in charity effectiveness are similar to price differences in consumer goods.
3. Scope neglect: People's emotional responses don't scale linearly with the number of beneficiaries helped.

The authors discuss several studies demonstrating scope neglect, showing that people's willingness to pay to solve a problem doesn't increase proportionally with the problem's size. They explain this phenomenon as partly due to the difficulty of evaluating options in "separate evaluation" (considering options one at a time) versus "joint evaluation" (comparing options side by side).

The chapter also touches on the "identifiable victim effect," where people tend to feel more strongly about helping a single, identifiable person than a larger group of "statistical" victims. However, the authors note that more research is needed on this topic.

From a normative perspective, the authors argue that most reasonable moral theories agree that it's untenable to prioritize identifiable victims over larger numbers of statistical victims. They emphasize that every life saved is equally valuable, regardless of whether it's the first or the thousandth.

The chapter concludes by reflecting on the nature of scope neglect. While it leads to suboptimal allocation of resources, the authors suggest that it may stem from a positive trait: our strong empathy for individuals. They argue that we should retain this empathy but channel it more effectively to help as many people as possible.

Key takeaways

• The differences in effectiveness between charities are much larger than most people realize.
• Understanding and acting on these differences could dramatically increase the impact of charitable giving.
• Psychological biases like scope neglect and the identifiable victim effect hinder our ability to maximize the good we can do.
• Overcoming these biases while retaining our empathy is crucial for effective altruism.

3. Distant Causes and Nearsighted Feelings

The chapter begins by explaining that most people prefer to help beneficiaries who are close to them in three ways:

1. Spatially close (parochialism) - prioritizing local or national charities over those helping distant countries
2. Temporally close (presentism) - prioritizing currently existing people over future generations
3. Biologically close (speciesism) - prioritizing humans over other species

However, the authors argue it is often more effective to help more distant beneficiaries. This is because most opportunities to help nearby beneficiaries have already been taken, while opportunities to help distant ones are often neglected.

The chapter then explores each of these biases in depth:

Parochialism:

• Only about 10% of US charitable donations go to other countries, despite many international charities being highly effective
• This is partly due to lack of knowledge about effective international charities, but also an intrinsic preference for local causes
• Parochialism likely evolved to facilitate cooperation in small groups, not to help distant strangers
• The effective altruism community often focuses on helping people in the world's poorest countries as a more effective use of resources

Presentism:

• Most people prefer helping currently existing people over future generations
• This leads to underinvestment in long-term issues like climate change
• Reasons include high temporal discount rates, inability of future people to advocate for themselves, and lack of salience of future problems
• Many effective altruists focus on reducing existential risks to benefit potential future people

Speciesism:

• People tend to prioritize humans over animals, even when animals could be helped more effectively
• Only a tiny fraction of charitable donations go to animal welfare causes
• Studies show people prioritize humans even over animals with equal or greater mental capacities
• This bias likely evolved due to lack of incentives to help animals in ancestral environments
• Many effective altruists focus on farm animal welfare as a neglected and effective cause area

The chapter then discusses some philosophical arguments and empirical research related to these biases:

• Peter Singer's "expanding circle" concept of moral progress
• Studies on the veil of ignorance reducing spatial bias
• Research on children being less speciesist than adults
• Debates over the moral value of bringing new people into existence
• Arguments for and against focusing on extinction risk reduction

The authors conclude that our altruistic feelings evolved for a very different environment than today's globalized world. While it can be psychologically challenging, expanding our circle of moral concern to include distant beneficiaries is often the most effective way to do good. They suggest this as an important area for further psychological research and moral development.

Key takeaways

• People generally prefer to help beneficiaries who are close to them spatially (parochialism), temporally (presentism), and biologically (speciesism), but it's often more effective to help more distant beneficiaries.
• Parochialism leads to underinvestment in highly effective international charities, despite their potential for greater impact than local causes.
• Presentism results in neglect of long-term issues like climate change and existential risks, even though addressing these could have enormous positive impact on future generations.
• Speciesism causes significant underinvestment in animal welfare causes, particularly farm animal welfare, which could be highly cost-effective.
• These biases likely evolved due to our ancestral environment, where helping nearby individuals, immediate problems, and our own species was most adaptive.
• Overcoming these biases is challenging but crucial for maximizing altruistic impact. Techniques like the "veil of ignorance" reasoning can help reduce these biases.
• Expanding our circle of moral concern to include distant beneficiaries is a key aspect of effective altruism and represents an important area for further psychological research and moral development.

4. Tough Prioritizing

The chapter begins by emphasizing that effective altruism requires not only supporting the most effective causes but also choosing not to support less effective causes. This concept of prioritization is presented as one of the most challenging aspects of helping effectively.

The authors explain that while many people are positive about effectiveness in abstract terms, they often struggle with its practical implications. They illustrate this with an example from the Rwandan civil war, where triage decisions had to be made about which patients to treat. While such prioritization feels more acceptable in emergency situations, people are less inclined to apply the same logic to charitable giving in non-emergency contexts.

The chapter presents research showing that people often prefer to split their donations between charities of different effectiveness levels, rather than allocating all resources to the most effective option. This tendency persists even when people are explicitly informed about effectiveness differences.

The authors explore several psychological mechanisms behind this resistance to prioritization:

1. Opportunity Cost Neglect: People often fail to consider what else they could have done with their resources.
2. Sacred Values: Certain values, like human lives, are seen as "sacred" and not subject to trade-offs.
3. Preference for Fairness: People often feel it's unfair to completely deprioritize some causes or beneficiaries.

The chapter delves deeper into the concept of sacred values, drawing on research by Philip Tetlock. It explains that while people are comfortable making trade-offs between "secular" values (like consumer goods), they resist trading off "sacred" values (like human lives) against secular ones or even against each other.

The authors argue that this aversion to trade-offs involving sacred values, while understandable, can lead to suboptimal outcomes in altruistic efforts. They emphasize that prioritizing the most effective interventions isn't cold or uncaring, but rather the best way to express care for others on a larger scale.

The chapter then explores the concept of splitting donations in more detail. It presents several reasons why people might prefer to split their donations:

• Aversion to trade-offs
• Diminishing marginal utility from giving to the same charity
• Perceived fairness

The authors argue that while splitting might feel intuitively fair, it often leads to less effective outcomes. They introduce the concept of "thinking on the margin" to explain why concentrating donations on the most effective charity is typically more impactful.

The chapter also addresses the "Kantian fallacy" - the idea that we shouldn't prioritize the most effective charities because if everyone did so, those charities would be overwhelmed. The authors explain why this reasoning is flawed and how effective donors can coordinate to avoid such issues.

Finally, the chapter discusses the relationship between prioritization and fairness. While many people view strict prioritization as unfair, the authors argue that true fairness involves helping as many individuals as possible, regardless of which groups they belong to.

Key takeaways

• Effective altruism requires not only supporting effective causes but also deprioritizing less effective ones.
• Many people struggle with prioritization, preferring to split their donations even when informed about effectiveness differences.
• This resistance to prioritization stems from psychological factors like opportunity cost neglect, sacred values, and preferences for perceived fairness.
• The aversion to trade-offs involving sacred values can lead to suboptimal outcomes in altruistic efforts.
• Splitting donations, while intuitively appealing, often results in less effective outcomes than concentrating resources on the most effective interventions.
• Effective prioritization requires "thinking on the margin" about where additional resources would have the greatest impact.
• True fairness in altruism involves helping as many individuals as possible, rather than ensuring all causes receive some support.

5. Misconceptions About Effectiveness

The chapter begins by recapping various misconceptions about effective altruism discussed in previous chapters, such as underestimating differences in charity effectiveness and neglecting distant beneficiaries. It then focuses on more fundamental misconceptions about the concept of effectiveness itself.

The Overhead Myth: The chapter starts with what the authors call the "overhead myth" - the common belief that low overhead costs (expenses not directly related to programs) indicate high charity effectiveness. The authors argue that this belief is misguided for two main reasons:

1. Overhead ratios don't correlate strongly with effectiveness.
2. The most important determinants of effectiveness are the problems charities address and the methods they employ.

The authors present research showing that many donors prioritize charities with low overhead even when explicitly told that a high-overhead charity is more effective. They explore several reasons for this focus on overhead:

• Misunderstanding the relationship between overhead and effectiveness
• Ease of calculating and evaluating overhead compared to impact
• Intrinsic preferences for low-overhead charities
• Aversion to waste and corruption

Direct vs. Indirect Impact: The chapter then discusses the preference for direct over indirect forms of impact. Many people prefer interventions with a clear, direct path to impact, even when informed that indirect approaches might be more effective. The authors argue that this bias can lead to neglecting highly effective "meta-charities" that have impact through other charities, such as charity evaluators or fundraising organizations.

Comparability of Different Causes: Another key misconception addressed is the belief that we can't compare the impact of work on different causes (e.g., health vs. education). The authors introduce two metrics for making such comparisons:

• Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs): For comparing health interventions
• Well-Being-Adjusted Life Years (WELLBYs): For comparing interventions across various domains

They acknowledge the challenges in measuring and comparing impact across causes but argue that it's both possible and necessary for effective altruism.

Aversion to Risky Giving: The chapter explores people's tendency to prefer interventions with certain, but smaller, impact over those with uncertain but potentially much larger impact. The authors introduce the concept of expected value and argue that in altruistic contexts, we should typically be risk-neutral rather than risk-averse.

The Growing Effectiveness Gap: The final section of the chapter discusses why misconceptions about effectiveness in altruistic contexts persist, while similar misconceptions are less common in areas like investment and consumption. The authors argue that this "effectiveness gap" has likely grown over time due to several factors:

• Lack of market pressure in the charitable sector
• Weaker incentives for effectiveness in altruistic contexts
• Absence of tools and norms conducive to effectiveness in altruism

They suggest that addressing these issues could help close the effectiveness gap over time.

Key takeaways

• The "overhead myth" - equating low overhead with high effectiveness - is a widespread but misguided belief that can lead to suboptimal charitable giving.
• Many people prefer direct forms of impact over indirect ones, even when the latter might be more effective, potentially neglecting highly effective meta-charities.
• Contrary to common belief, it is possible and necessary to compare the impact of work on different causes using metrics like QALYs and WELLBYs.
• People tend to be overly risk-averse in altruistic contexts, preferring certain but smaller impact over uncertain but potentially much larger impact.
• An "effectiveness gap" has grown between how people approach altruistic efforts versus investment and consumption decisions, due to differences in incentives, tools, and norms.
• Addressing misconceptions about effectiveness and creating better tools and norms could significantly increase the impact of altruistic efforts.
• Understanding and overcoming these misconceptions is crucial for maximizing the positive impact of altruistic endeavors.

PART II. INTERVENTIONS

6. Information, Nudges, and Incentives

The chapter begins by introducing a relatively modest strategy for overcoming psychological obstacles to effective altruism: working with people's existing values and preferences rather than trying to change them fundamentally. The authors focus on three types of techniques: providing information, nudging, and incentives.

Providing Information: The authors discuss several studies they conducted to test the effectiveness of providing information about charity effectiveness:

1. Informing people about the existence of highly effective charities significantly increased the likelihood of participants choosing these charities.
2. Debunking the "overhead myth" by explaining the relationship between overhead and effectiveness led more participants to choose a more effective high-overhead charity over a less effective low-overhead one.
3. Providing information about the effectiveness of charities addressing ongoing health issues in developing countries versus disaster relief charities increased support for the former.

The authors note that while providing information can help, it doesn't make everyone help in the most effective way, as incorrect beliefs are not the only obstacle to effective altruism.

Real-World Examples: The chapter discusses real-world organizations that provide information about charity effectiveness, such as GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators, and Founders Pledge. It also mentions 80,000 Hours, which provides career advice for those seeking to have a high impact.

The authors emphasize that these recommendations work insofar as people trust the rating organizations and are willing to defer to them. They note that people are often overly inclined to trust their own judgments over expert recommendations.

Nudging: The chapter then explores nudging as a strategy to alter people's behavior without changing their preferences. The authors focus on a specific nudging technique called "donation bundling."

Donation Bundling: This technique involves giving donors the option to split their donations between their favorite charity and a highly effective charity. The authors present research showing that this approach can significantly increase donations to effective charities. They explain that bundling works by:

• Allowing people to satisfy both their preference for effectiveness and their preference for their favorite charity
• Capitalizing on diminishing marginal utility from giving to the same charity
• Potentially providing reputational benefits by signaling both warmth and competence

Incentivizing Effectiveness Through Donation Matching: The authors introduce a technique that combines bundling with donation matching. This approach offers increasing matching rates for donations that allocate larger proportions to effective charities. The research shows that this technique can substantially increase donations to effective charities.

Giving Multiplier: The chapter describes Giving Multiplier, a real-world donation platform that implements these techniques. The platform allows donors to split their donations between their favorite charity and an effective charity, with higher matching rates for larger allocations to effective charities.

Donor Coordination Through Micro-Matching: The authors explain how Giving Multiplier uses a "micro-matching" system where some donors provide matching funds to incentivize others to give more effectively. This system allows for donor coordination and has made the platform financially self-sustaining.

Key takeaways

• Providing accurate information about charity effectiveness can significantly influence donation behavior, though it doesn't overcome all obstacles to effective giving.
• Real-world organizations that provide charity effectiveness information, like GiveWell, play a crucial role in promoting effective giving.
• Nudging techniques, particularly donation bundling, can effectively increase support for highly effective charities without changing donors' fundamental preferences.
• Combining donation bundling with matching incentives can further increase donations to effective charities.
• The Giving Multiplier platform demonstrates the real-world applicability and success of these techniques.
• Micro-matching and donor coordination can create a self-sustaining system that promotes more effective giving.
• These strategies represent a relatively tractable approach to increasing the effectiveness of altruistic efforts without requiring fundamental value change.

7. Finding the Enthusiasts

The chapter begins by addressing the apparent contradiction between the formidable psychological obstacles to effective altruism and the growing number of people who identify as effective altruists. The authors explain that this can be reconciled by recognizing the substantial individual differences in people's inclinations toward effective altruism.

The chapter then discusses the potential strategy of targeting outreach efforts specifically at those who are more open to effective altruism. The authors argue that understanding the psychology of these "effective altruism enthusiasts" is both practically and theoretically relevant.

Practical relevance:

• Helps identify potential effective altruists
• Informs outreach strategies
• Helps estimate the potential size of the effective altruism movement

Theoretical relevance:

• Provides a richer understanding of obstacles to effective altruism
• Illuminates the relationship between different psychological factors

The authors then present their research on identifying the psychological factors that predict endorsement of core effective altruist ideas. Through factor analysis of survey responses, they identified two core moral factors:

1. Expansive Altruism:

• Willingness to give away resources to help others
• Caring about individuals who are distant spatially, temporally, and biologically
• These two aspects correlated strongly enough to be considered a single factor

1. Effectiveness-Focus:

• Inclination to make tough trade-offs and deprioritize less effective ways of helping
• Correlated only weakly with expansive altruism, suggesting it's a distinct factor

The chapter provides detailed explanations of each factor, including example survey items and correlations with various outcome measures related to effective altruism.

Expansive Altruism:

• Predicted both the amount people were willing to donate and the proportion they'd give to effective charities
• Correlated with positive attitudes toward effective altruism and interest in learning more about it
• Associated with willingness to consider significant life changes for altruistic reasons

Effectiveness-Focus:

• Predicted effective giving in various scenarios involving obstacles to effectiveness
• Correlated with positive reactions to information about effective altruism
• Did not predict willingness to donate per se, but rather how donations were allocated

The authors note that these two factors, which broadly correspond to the "A" and "E" in EA, are psychologically distinct. This helps explain why relatively few people immediately find effective altruism wholly convincing.

The chapter also discusses a third factor, Truth-Seeking, which the authors argue is crucial for applying effective altruism in practice. They describe various measures of epistemic attitudes and virtues that might be relevant to effective altruism, such as actively open-minded thinking.

Finally, the authors suggest directions for future research, including:

• Studying other potentially relevant traits like collaborativeness and determination
• More in-depth research on the prevalence of effective altruist inclinations
• Demographic studies of groups likely to be positively inclined toward effective altruism

Key takeaways

• There are substantial individual differences in inclinations toward effective altruism, which helps explain its growth despite psychological obstacles.
• Two core moral factors predict enthusiasm for effective altruism: Expansive Altruism and Effectiveness-Focus.
• These factors are psychologically distinct, which helps explain why relatively few people immediately find effective altruism wholly convincing.
• A third factor, Truth-Seeking, is crucial for applying effective altruism in practice.
• Understanding these factors can inform outreach strategies and help estimate the potential size of the effective altruism movement.
• Further research is needed on other relevant traits, the prevalence of effective altruist inclinations, and demographic patterns.
• This research provides both practical insights for growing the effective altruism movement and theoretical understanding of human altruism.

8. Fundamental Value Change

The chapter begins by contrasting the strategies discussed in previous chapters, which work within people's existing values, with the more ambitious goal of changing society's fundamental values to align more closely with effective altruism. The authors acknowledge that this is a challenging project but argue that even partial success could make a significant difference.

The chapter then explores two main approaches to fundamental value change:

1. The efficacy of reason-based moral arguments
2. A method that starts with targeting groups predisposed to effective altruism and uses them as a springboard for broader societal change

Reason-Based Moral Arguments: The authors discuss the role of philosophical reasoning in the early adoption of effective altruism, citing examples like Peter Singer's "drowning child" argument and Toby Ord's case for cost-effectiveness in global health. They then explore whether such arguments could persuade broader groups.

The chapter reviews several studies on the effectiveness of moral arguments:

• Schwitzgebel and Cushman's contest on arguments for charitable giving
• Grodeck and Schoenegger's study on arguments about extreme poverty
• Huang, Greene, and Bazerman's research on veil of ignorance reasoning
• Studies on the "save more lives" principle

The authors note that while some studies show positive effects, the results are often mixed, and the long-term impacts are unclear.

The chapter also compares reason-based and emotion-based arguments, referencing a study by Lindauer et al. that found no significant difference between the two approaches in increasing donations.

Real-World Studies: The authors discuss Schwitzgebel, Cokelet, and Singer's study on the effectiveness of ethics classes in changing student behavior. The results were mixed, with teaching about meat-eating ethics having an effect but teaching about charitable giving potentially having a backfire effect.

Limitations of Moral Arguments: The chapter acknowledges that moral arguments alone are unlikely to sway large portions of society to adopt effective altruism. The authors argue that if such arguments were highly effective, one would expect the effective altruism movement to have grown more substantially given the arguments made over the past decade.

Interaction of Arguments and Norms: The authors propose that while most people won't immediately accept effective altruist ideas, there's potential for longer-term growth through the interaction of arguments and changing social norms. They suggest that:

1. Arguments may persuade those naturally inclined towards effective altruism (as discussed in Chapter 7)
2. As more people adopt effective altruist ideas, peer effects and changing norms could make broader groups more receptive

The chapter draws parallels with other social movements that have seen rapid norm changes, such as attitudes towards same-sex marriage and racial equality. The authors discuss the concept of "behavioral contagion" and how it could potentially apply to effective altruism.

Potential for Effective Altruism's Spread: The authors consider factors that might support or hinder the spread of effective altruism:

Supporting factors:

• Built on ideas like scientific mindset and moral impartiality, which have become more popular over time
• Spreading effective altruism can itself be an effective way of doing good

Potential hindrances:

• Lack of salient injustices compared to other successful movements
• The abstract nature of effectiveness as a concept

Key takeaways

• Changing fundamental values to align with effective altruism is challenging but potentially highly impactful.
• Reason-based moral arguments can have some effect, but results are often mixed and long-term impacts are unclear.
• Moral arguments alone are unlikely to sway large portions of society to adopt effective altruism.
• The interaction between arguments and changing social norms may offer a path to longer-term growth of effective altruism.
• The spread of effective altruism could potentially follow patterns similar to other social movements that have seen rapid norm changes.
• Factors like the increasing popularity of scientific thinking and moral impartiality may support the spread of effective altruism.
• More research is needed on the effects of moral arguments and norm changes in promoting effective altruist values.

9. Effective Altruism for Mortals

The chapter begins by addressing the misconception that effective altruism requires extreme sacrifices, such as working constantly and giving away almost all resources. Instead, the authors argue for a more sustainable approach, aiming for "maximum sustainable goodness" rather than perfection.

The Two-Budget Strategy: The authors introduce the "two-budget strategy" as a way to balance effective altruism with personal needs and desires:

1. Effective Altruism Budget: Resources dedicated to doing the most good from a global, impartial perspective.
2. Personal Budget: Resources used for personal needs, desires, and relationships.

They emphasize that individuals must decide for themselves how much to allocate to each budget, considering factors like income, age, and dependents. The authors suggest making this decision explicitly, perhaps annually, to avoid constant internal negotiation.

Avoiding the Half-Measure Fallacy: The chapter explains the "half-measure fallacy," where people attempt to compromise between effectiveness and personal preferences by choosing the most effective charity within a preferred cause area. The authors demonstrate why this is suboptimal due to the vast differences in effectiveness between causes.

Effective Altruist Virtues: The authors discuss key virtues for practicing effective altruism:

• Expansive Altruism
• Effectiveness-Focus
• Truth-Seeking
• Determination
• Collaborativeness

They emphasize that these virtues complement, rather than replace, common-sense virtues like honesty and kindness.

Finding the Highest-Impact Causes: The chapter reviews the scale-tractability-neglectedness framework for evaluating causes and discusses three popular cause areas in effective altruism:

1. Global Poverty and Health:

• Still affects hundreds of millions of people
• Relatively neglected by donors
• Tractable with evidence-based interventions

1. Animal Welfare:

• Affects hundreds of billions of animals
• Focuses on improving conditions for farm animals
• Employs strategies like corporate campaigns and developing alternative proteins

1. The Long-Term Future:

• Underpinned by longtermist philosophy
• Often focuses on reducing existential risks
• Includes causes like AI safety and biosecurity

The authors also mention "meta causes" such as global priorities research and spreading effective altruist ideas.

Impact Strategies: The chapter discusses two broad classes of strategies for having an impact:

1. Using Money (Donations):

• Advantages include flexibility and wide availability
• Can support a range of projects beyond direct aid

1. Using Time:

• Career choice as a high-impact strategy
• Voting as an underappreciated way to have impact

The authors emphasize the importance of cause-neutrality and means-neutrality when choosing strategies.

Engaging with Effective Altruist Ideas: The chapter suggests that deeply engaging with effective altruist ideas can be highly impactful, potentially more so than immediately taking action. It emphasizes the value of:

• Reading and learning about effective altruism
• Connecting with others interested in effective altruism
• Specializing and collaborating within the effective altruism community

Future Directions: The authors conclude by suggesting areas for future research on the psychology of effective altruism, including:

• Developing and testing interventions to increase effectiveness
• Devising more tests of effective altruist inclinations
• Studying effective altruist value change
• Examining non-donation strategies for doing good
• Investigating cross-cultural differences
• Researching the psychology of specific high-impact causes

Key takeaways

• Effective altruism doesn't require extreme sacrifices but rather aims for "maximum sustainable goodness."
• The two-budget strategy offers a practical way to balance effective altruism with personal needs and desires.
• Cultivating specific virtues, like expansive altruism and effectiveness-focus, is crucial for practicing effective altruism.
• High-impact causes include global poverty and health, animal welfare, and safeguarding the long-term future.
• Both money (donations) and time (career choice) can be used as impact strategies.
• Deeply engaging with effective altruist ideas and connecting with others in the community can be highly impactful.
• Further research on the psychology of effective altruism is needed to refine strategies and expand its reach.