> the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity

EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se, but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.

▲

YetAnotherNick 20 hours ago | parent [-]

What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.

▲

JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> What doesn't make sense?

Well, for one, the frequency of its members committing mass fraud.

Like, if a church preaches kindness and love but its preachers and members are constantly out there murdering people, it's a bit silly to point to the text alone when evaluating the organisation.

	▲	yorwba 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What do you think the frequency of EAs committing mass fraud is? How many cases are you basing that on? What does that imply about the size of the EA movement? Does that number make sense? Like, if a church had 100,000 members, you would indeed expect them to commit a few murders each year. And GiveWell alone claims to have induced 150,000 people to donate... https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors