Hi Dvir, thank you for sharing your thoughts and raising some interesting points. I appreciate the insights and would like to address each of them in the context of my original post and previous responses.

1. Your first point about scope insensitivity and the difficulty for people to "think big" is well-taken. This ties in nicely with your third point about many people not believing they are capable of "doing something big." I completely agree that these challenges exist, which is why I believe it is important to help people gain this confidence in themselves. As expressed previously, I am quite skeptical to what extent the existing introduction track actually enables people to build this. Surely, people can learn about the fact that we live in a very important time and that each of us can make a big impact, but I think that real belief in yourself and ambitiousness stems from seeing evidence of the things you have already accomplished. It also comes from a deep understanding of who you are, where you come from, and what you are about. This is what I try to address with the PLP Track partially. The point you bring up is very important in my eyes, and I think one of the most influential factors in people considering high-impact opportunities.
2. I appreciate your point about the importance of financial security and stability in people's lives. As you rightly pointed out (I think), many people need to have their basic needs met before they can focus on higher-level goals, such as making a positive impact in the world. This highlights the importance of presenting EA as not only a path to do good but also as a means to achieve personal fulfillment and security. Emphasizing the variety of careers and opportunities within the EA community that can provide both financial stability and the chance to make a difference could be a powerful motivator for many individuals.
3. This leads me to my last point. The perception of doing good as a sacrifice is indeed a challenge that needs to be addressed. I think that reframing EA as a fulfilling and purpose-driven pursuit that can be integrated into one's life without requiring a sacrifice of everything can make the ideas of Effective Altruism more appealing and accessible to a wider audience. I am not entirely sure, though, to what extent we want this, as I do think that the majority of impact stems from a very small fraction of people. On the other hand, you could flip the argument again and argue that due to the young age of students at university, there is not an insignificant chance that people could become highly engaged if approached from a different angle.

In light of your points, I wonder if you have any suggestions on how EA university groups could better communicate the potential personal benefits and opportunities for personal growth that come with engaging in Effective Altruism? Do you have any ideas on how we can better address the concerns and challenges you've raised to create a more inclusive and empowering community for individuals at different stages of their lives?

Thank you for sharing your insights and prompting further discussion on this topic!

Thanks for writing up your thoughts Isaac! You present some thought-provoking perspectives that I have not yet considered.

I particularly resonate with your first point of disagreement that individuals can derive personal benefits from being altruistic simply by choosing some cause. Your argument that striving for cause-neutrality and maximizing positive impact may be less fulfilling is a valid one. However, I am unsure why working on a less neglected cause would necessarily be less emotionally fulfilling. In fact, pursuing something "unique" may be quite exciting. Nonetheless, I agree that cause-neutrality may be less fulfilling, as we all have unconscious biases that may favor certain causes due to personal experiences or connections. This may make steering against these inclinations more difficult, perhaps even unpleasant.

I also agree that targeting "already-altruistic people" who care about the magnitude of their impact probably is very promising. Social impact is heavy tailed so it is likely that these individuals could contribute to most of the net impact generated. I just think that EA university groups should not be the stakeholder group that make this trade-off.

In my view, it is important to carefully consider how to differentiate and vary the strategies of EA university, city, and national groups.

With the target audience of university groups being very young adults, I believe it is detrimental to exclude those who may not yet be "there yet". As I have previously argued, there are many young and ambitious individuals who have not yet determined their life's direction, and they could be easily nudged towards becoming "already-altruistic". The loss of counterfactual impact would be huge.

I would agree, however, that for city or national groups, a narrower focus might be a better strategy.

What are your thoughts on having a broader focus for EA university groups, but a narrower one for city  groups?

Yes indeed. It is not only about providing guidance for those who already prioritize making a positive impact, but also about inspiring and fostering that desire in individuals who may not have fully considered that option. By providing people with the opportunity to think about the relevance of altruism in their own lives we might not only be able to elevate its importance within individuals' values but also create a more motivated and well-informed group of individuals who are eager to learn about the most effective ways to make a difference.

Yes, I will give my best! Thanks for asking Jakub. Using your list, it would be points 4 and 5. 

To provide further nuance, I would like to emphasize two points. 
First, regarding point 4, I believe that many individuals possess a great deal of talent and ambition, however, they may be directed towards different pursuits. When I speak of "creating," I am primarily referring to redirecting ambition towards tackling the world's most pressing problems. 

Secondly, in regards to point 5, I believe that encouraging individuals to address the most pressing issues is not always best accomplished simply by educating them about these issues. 

People have different priorities and ambitions at various stages in their lives, which is natural. I would argue that the challenge is that many individuals have not thoroughly reflected on their most important values and goals. As a result, it becomes hard for them to tell if what they're doing aligns with their goals they might find most important in the end. In fact, determining this can be challenging. In other words, when I speak of "creating" individuals who want to tackle the world's most pressing problems, I mean that we should empower people to re-evaluate their existing priorities and to let them learn about the "fact" that making a positive impact may be one of many meaningful ways to lead a fulfilling life. Through this process, individuals may come to realize that this path will bring them (and others) more happiness. 

This ties into the second point. Before individuals can care about addressing the most pressing issues, they need to understand why it matters to them personally. Unless an individual has established that making a positive impact is a core part of their life, why should they be motivated to tackle the world's most pressing problems? The underlying reason for wanting to do so often stems from a desire to prevent large-scale suffering or improve the wellbeing of many. 

I agree with you that community building is already working towards point 5, however, the current approach is only effective for a relatively small portion of people - namely, those who have already determined that making a positive impact is important to them. For those who have not yet reached this realization, learning about how to make a bigger impact will not be particularly effective unless they are first motivated to do so. Improving their productivity or time management skills will not be particularly helpful unless they have a desire to use their time to make a positive impact. I believe that we need a more diverse range of strategies to inspire this motivation in different types of individuals. For some, learning about how to make a big impact may be sufficient, while for others, learning about why making an impact matters may be necessary as a foundation for intrinsic motivation. 

I hope this helps!

I appreciate your thoughts Malte. Thank you for sharing them! I agree with your point that there are university students who are already altruistically motivated and actively seeking ways to make an impact. I also agree that this type of audience may be less interested in this track because they have already covered the related topics and themes. It will be interesting to see to what extent this is the case. I think the Introductory EA Program is very appropriate for this group.

However, I argue that there is a large group of students who have not yet reflected on their core priorities in life and the importance of doing good. These students may not be immediately inclined to explore ways to improve their impact, as they have not yet internalised the reasons of why doing good matters to them.

The PLP Track is primarily intended to provide value to this second group of students. It's goal is to help them consider what they truly value in the long-term and what kind of life they want to live. Through this process, they may come to realize that incorporating a focus on doing good aligns with their values and goals, and become more motivated to explore ways of doing good better, such as by participating in the Introductory EA Program.

It is important to note that that my first hypothesis intended to convey that the PLP Track is 85% more effective in converting this type of audience, those that are not altruistically motivated yet. I hypothesize that this type of audience will not even join the Introductory EA Program in the first place (there are of course exceptions). This is because unless people have internalised why doing good matters to them I argue that they will be a lot less likely to care about how to do good better.

I could have made that clearer in the post, and I think it is possible that my prediction is overly confident. Time will most likely reveal the validity of this hypothesis and whether my tendency to be rather optimistic distorted the accuracy of my prediction. Then I am happy to update my beliefs and learn from it for the next time. Thanks again for your thoughts!

Also thank you Pete for your point here! I agree that the intro program can be a very good way for people to find purpose. However, I argue that a significant proportion of people are less interested in learning about "doing good better" simply because more basic needs are not being met (you can read more about this in my response to Harrison's comment I just posted). If people read through the curriculum before signing up to the intro fellowship and see concepts like "effectiveness mindset" or "scope insensitivity", then I think many will ask themselves "Great, that's all very nice. But how is that going to help me find a job with which I support myself and my family?"

People will prioritise their time according to what is currently most important to them. And if you are in a phase of your life where you are not as privileged to be able to make doing good a core part of your life, you will often have more urgent things to manage than joining an Introductory EA Program. So while I agree that the intro program has many potential benefits, I believe the actual challenge is getting people to sign up for it in the first place.

That's why the PLP Track might be more effective at attracting those who wouldn't normally consider the Intro Program. It provides value in a different way and addresses different priorities.

Thank you for your criticism and feedback, Harrison. I agree that if EA groups are not careful, they can come across as preachy or manipulative. Therefore, it's very important to emphasise that the PLP Track is not intended to convince students to join the Introductory EA Program or our EA group. Its aim is to help students think about their values and their life and choose what is best for them, not what is best for any particular group. In the upcoming time we will work on strategies that attempt to mitigate risks like these.

Regarding your strong criticism, I believe your argument is plausible, but there are a few reasons why I have a different opinion.  Many young adults are still figuring out what they want to do with their lives. While Maslow's hierarchy of needs has limitations, I believe we can draw some important conclusions from it. According to Maslow, people must have their basic needs more or less met before they can focus on higher level needs. Before people focus on giving something back to the world (which is in my eyes self-actualisation), people must first satisfy their own basic needs (like having intimate relationships or the perception of security and safety). I think there is a substantial amount of young adults who simply can't afford to invest a lot of time into caring about others. Before this can effectively happen people need to take care of themselves.

The PLP Track can potentially aid this process by helping people learn more about what is actually important to them and what they are good at. Once these areas are addressed individuals may be more likely to move on to caring about others and generating social impact. I think this is also one of the reasons why career-focuses messaging is a lot more effective than donation-focused messaging. It addresses the more urgent and important needs of younger adults.

As for your "weaker" criticism about the filtering effect, I agree that it can be beneficial. However, people come from a variety of backgrounds and often have different levels of support and resources available to them. External factors, such as privilege and luck, can significantly impact an individual's ability to focus on personal development and meeting their basic needs before they can consider "giving something back" to the world. To put it bluntly, I think the current paradigm for EA community building of "finding" talented and ambitious people may actually be identifying those that are the most privileged. Those that had the time to lay the groundwork for EA ideas and to figure out that they want to make "doing good" large part of their life. I think it is difficult to argue that  someone who is not interested in EA as a student won't likely be a good fit. What about those who had to spend a significant portion of their time working outside of university and dealing with a variety of other challenges? They simply did not have the time yet to figure these things out for themselves.

I think there is a high chance that we are losing out on a substantial amount of people who could be a very good fit, but are not (yet) due to external factors people often can't control. Moreover, while I think it's true that genetics and personality play a significant role in an individual's inclination towards EA ideas, there is evidence that suggests that personality traits can change throughout the 20s and even beyond. However, I believe this is a strong point you make. I am also rather skeptical about the extent to which personality changes throughout adulthood.

To conclude my response, I think it's important  to recognize that individuals are at very different stages in their development. As a result, I believe that (established) EA university groups should develop more programs that cater to a diverse range of people in order to avoid missing out on those who may be a good fit for EA, but are not yet due to external factors.