This just seems like a generic advice to me which is theoretically applicable to everyone. Is there any evidence of effective altruists not doing that, or this being specifically a problem with "really-smart-person"s?
>No, they don't trust that you can scale the concept of "food banks are more effective than I am" to any kind of maximization. You can still donate to worthy causes and effective organizations.
I'm not quite understanding what you're arguing for here. Are you saying that you disagree with effective altruists' assessment that you should be funding malaria nets in africa or whatever (ie. what they want you to do), rather than donating to local food banks (ie. what you want to do)?
>Yeah, basically. Giving is more helpful than not giving, so even a non-maximalist approach is better than nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good, aim for good.
To be clear, you're arguing for donating for whatever your gut tells you, rather than trying to maximize benefit?
Yes. Don't overthink it and end up trying to colonize Mars instead of buying the homeless guy down the street a sandwich.
'My conscience wants vegetarianism to win over the world. And my subconscious is yearning for a piece of juicy meat. But what do I want?'
It's simple really: just be skeptical of your own reasoning because you're aware of your own biases and fallibility. Be a good scientist and be open to being wrong.
> So you don't trust donating money to food banks or malaria nets because "don't have any reason to trust them", then what?
No, they don't trust that you can scale the concept of "food banks are more effective than I am" to any kind of maximization. You can still donate to worthy causes and effective organizations.
> Don't donate any money at all? Give up trying to maximize impact and donate to whatever you feel like donating to?
Yeah, basically. Giving is more helpful than not giving, so even a non-maximalist approach is better than nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good, aim for good.