Effective Altruists discussion

Hello everyone!

We're trying the format of starting discussion on the monthly book a few weeks ahead of time, so people can share their thoughts/questions as they read.

Our current planned discussion date is Sunday, January 18th at 9pm UTC (please RSVP to the group event). We will discuss the book and any other thoughts/reading.

Exploratory thought vs. rationalization

What strategies have people found to be effective in promoting exploratory thought?

Personally, I've only been able to reliably change/tame the "elephant", which takes a lot of time and can only be done in small groups or individually.

However, Haidt says that there is a faster method - "changing the path the elephant is on" by creating an environment of accountability. What are some real-life examples where people have implemented this or seen it work? Or not work?

I have another discussion topic:

I got to the point where Haidt talks about how Liberals only focus on three of the moral tastes while Conservatives focus on all six, and I start thinking: Oh, crap. I think Effective Altruism focuses only one one: Care/Harm. We discard the typical liberal notion of fighting against inequality, in favor of shoving money where it does the most good, which is liberty/oppression. And we don't really appeal to fairness/cheating much.

So, my questions are:
1) What are EA-aligned messages that would appeal to different moral tastes beyond Care/Harm?
2) Are there any moral tastes EAs should take more seriously, and factor into our calculations of how to do good?

Six Moral Tastes:
Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

@Kyle: by "changing the path", maybe Haidt means just not putting the elephant in a situation where it can lean. Removing names from resumes before you appraise them could be an example of that.

On an another topic, Haidt promotes group selection for a while in that book. On this, I thought this conversation at edge.org was interesting: http://edge.org/conversation/the-fals.... Pinker takes the opposite view and plays down group selection.

I wrote some notes in my Goodreads review if anyone is interested: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Additional questions/thoughts:
Is there anything the EA movement can learn from the discussion of groupishness in the book?
For example, it seems like free riding is a fundamental problem for groups, and so it might become a problem for EAs in the future (especially if we want to promote costly forms of cooperation).
Does the discussion on the hive switch suggest any ways for EA to use it to build a stronger sense of group?
Philanthrocalism and commitment to causes based on arbitrary criteria seem to be about feeling like you belong to a group and committing to it. This suggests that EA arguments about where to donate will trigger more pushback the more strongly people identify with the helped group, or as someone who donates to a particular cause. Is there any alternative to the cost-effectiveness argument that bypasses this, and might be more effective at persuading the elephant?

Copy of the summary sections from the book, if anyone needs a refresher before the discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W...

Thanks William, we can definitely make use of that while we're talking!

I'll be posting the hangout link in the event in the next couple minutes.