Disputability & meaning

For effective altruism to be meaningful, it must be disputable

One of my colleagues just started a reading group for The Art of Gathering by Priya Parker. In chapter 1 she says that good events need a disputable purpose—specific, unique, and open to debate.

In Parker’s view, having a purpose that is specific enough to argue will inform your decision-making more meaningfully and act as an important filter.

All week, I have been thinking about how this must apply to anything that tries to gather people (events, movements, identities). And I think, even though EAs famously love criticism and debate in some ways; in other ways, EAs sometimes struggle with the reality of doing something disputable. A few takeaways I had:

1. If effective altruism is saying something meaningful, then it must also say something disputable. This, by definition, will filter people out. Thus, not everyone can agree with effective altruism and that should not be a goal of EA.

2. Something will not be disputed simply because it is disputable. To receive dispute, it must also be interesting and worth attention. Thus, if effective altruism aims to do meaningful things, it should expect to be disputed. Not in the, I engaged very deeply and have critiques from within the core assumptions and ideas, way, but in the, I reject this and think it sucks, way.

3. Sometimes, your choices will forever remain disputable. For example, some people hate the name effective altruism. But, there is no right name. Any name is disputable. I don’t mean to overstate how subjective things are. I think it’s true that, if you could poll the whole world on five different names for EA, it’s very possible one would clearly come out on top for your desired objective. But to be meaningful, the objective must be disputable. And so on. Sometimes, you accept this disputability and decide, at a point, to stop losing sleep over it. This isn’t to say that you’re closed off to feedback; just that, you’re more sceptical of feedback which appears to imply that it’s possible to choose a name that is no longer disputable.