Last updated: 16th July, 2024.
1. Overview
In this practice exercise, you will take turns moderating group discussions.
- There will be five rounds of discussions.
- In each round, one person will be a moderator and the others will have instructions on what type of participant they should be and what they should say.
- There should be five people in your group.
- One of these is your assigned meta-moderator. They have a good amount of experience facilitating discussions, so they won’t be moderating any of the practice rounds. They will be participants in each discussion and afterwards will help moderate a discussion about each practice round. They are also a helpful resource for advice and lessons learned.
- Your meta-moderator will be Participant E.
- The other four members of your group will be Participants A, B, C, and D based alphabetically. Whoever’s first name comes first alphabetically will be participant A, and so on.
- If your group has 6 people, each round, one person can sit out and take notes on the discussion.
- If there are fewer people in your group, randomly choose one person to be a moderator for the round(s) with a missing moderator.
- Have fun! This is a judgement free zone, and we are all learning and improving. These are situations that might come up during your program, but might not! The goal of this is to be more aware of when conversations are going poorly and to get ideas on how to improve them :)
2. Instructions
- The meta-moderator will kick-start the practice with a quick overview of the exercise (information from “Overview” and “Instructions”).
- The meta-moderator will conduct an icebreaker
- Everyone will take turns to give their name, pronouns (optional), EA affiliation, and if you have ever run a discussion group before.
- Feel free to add more questions to the icebreaker (e.g. last book you’ve read, worst fears of facilitation, etc)
- Whoever’s first name comes first alphabetically will start first.
- Give everyone 1-2 minutes to make sure they know which letter participant they are and to read their roles/instructions.
- Participant A will also be the first person, B the second person, and so on.
- Each person scrolls to the section in this doc with their participant letter’s instructions.
- The meta-moderator should prepare a timer too.
- The meta-moderator will ask if anyone has any questions before starting.
- Start the discussion
- The assigned moderator kicks off discussion based on their instructions
- Each participant contributes based on their instructions
- The moderator attempts to facilitate the conversation so that everyone has a chance to speak, and the discussion keeps moving forward
- After 4 minutes, the meta-moderator calls time (earlier is also fine! If the problem seems solved, just move on)
- Spend 4 minutes discussing what went well and what could have been improved about the discussion
- Repeat steps 3-5 until all rounds are complete
- Once you’ve completed the training session, please complete the post facilitator training survey (1-3 minutes).
- If you have extra time, brainstorm other problems that might pop up and how to address them.
3. Timer: ⌛5:00
4. Discussion Topics:
Round 1: Expanding the Moral Circle
- Question: How likely do you think it is that we currently do not show moral concern to beings that deserve it? Why?
Round 2: X-Risk
- Question: Can anyone explain Ord’s reasoning about why an existential catastrophe is so much worse than other global catastrophes? What do you think?
Round 3: Longtermism
- Question: What are the best arguments against longtermism?
Round 4: Emerging Technology
- Question: What things do you think will happen in the next 200 years that could have a large impact on the trajectory of human civilisation?
Round 5: Criticisms of EA
- Question: What do you think of the idea of using cost-effectiveness estimates to decide where to give or what to work on?
5. Participant A
Round 1:
- You are the moderator!
- Start by just opening the question to general discussion
- “How likely do you think it is that we currently do not show moral concern to beings that deserve it? Why?”
Round 2:
- You are quiet but know the answer. If the question is answered by someone else stay quiet.
- Only answer or respond if you are directly called on.
- If called on to answer you can say something like:
- “An existential catastrophe would not only affect those directly affected but it would also mean the curtailing of future potential. All the people that otherwise would have been born won’t get to.”
- If called on to give an opinion try to answer quickly such as:
- “Seems right to me”
Round 3:
- You are super confused by the jargon one of the other participants starts talking about but insecure about not knowing what it means
- Nod along agreeingly to the person talking
- If the moderator just asks “do people know what x is” just nod
- Don’t speak up unless the terms used are clearly defined
- If they are not defined but you are asked your opinion just agree with the person before you
Round 4:
- You are going to go off on a tangent!
- One of the other participants will join you
- Have fun with this one. Here are some example tangents:
- Just give a detailed summary of a scifi movie like the matrix or terminator
- Start talking about Elon Musk wanting to go to mars and now being the richest person in the world
- Give a plot synopsis of a dystopian novel like: 1984, the Hunger Games, Handmaid’s Tale, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Divergent… etc.
Round 5:
- You are sceptical of EA and agree with points raised by other participants.
- Nod along when others are being critical.
- If asked for your opinion, say whatever you like, for example “Yeah I agree it seems like we should be thinking about more than just cost-effectiveness.”
6. Participant B
Round 1:
- You are talkative person 1. You and talkative person 2 will dominate the conversation.
- Here is a suggested script for you and person 2. Feel free to change it up a bit. Just make sure you are clearly only talking to each other.
You (Jumping right in): “This seems totally right! We have a long history of not showing moral concern to all of those who deserve it. It only makes sense that we would still be doing this.”
Person 2: “I guess? But it seems like a big jump to go from giving different groups of people moral concern to giving different species moral concern…”
You: “ But they feel pain right? Isn’t that all that matters?”
Person 2: “I don’t know if I am convinced of that. Is that all that matters? Should a pig and a person have equal concern if they both feel pain?”
You: “Well there probably are other considerations too but we have been quick to discount groups of moral concern in the past so I think we should be cautious of jumping to conclusions”
Person 2: “Should we then be worried about plants? If we aren’t jumping to conclusions?”
You: “Maybe… It is worth at least considering”
Go on until interrupted by the moderator
Round 2:
- You are the moderator!
- Start by asking the group the question:
- “Can anyone explain Ord’s reasoning about why an existential catastrophe is so much worse than other global catastrophes?”
- After you get an answer ask people what they think.
Round 3:
- You are super confused by the jargon one of the other participants starts talking about but insecure about not knowing what it means
- Nod along agreeingly to the person talking
- If the moderator just asks “do people know what x is” just nod
- Don’t speak up unless the terms used are clearly defined
- If they are not defined but you are asked your opinion just agree with the person before you
Round 4:
- You will be a tangent supporter!
- Another participant is going to go on a weird tangent but you find it really interesting.
- You should jump into the tangent tagging along
- Make sure your contributions are encouraging the tangent rather than stopping it
Round 5:
- You won’t really know what to think about all the criticisms being raised of EA.
- Look confused and avoid speaking.
- If the moderator asks for your opinion, say something like “I’m not really sure… I can see both sides”.
7. Participant C
Round 1:
- You are talkative person 2. You and talkative person 1 will dominate the conversation.
- Here is a suggested script for you and person 1. Feel free to change it up a bit. Just make sure you are clearly only talking to each other.
Person 1: “This seems totally right! We have a long history of not showing moral concern to all of those who deserve it. It only makes sense that we would still be doing this.”
You: “I guess? But it seems like a big jump to go from giving different groups of people moral concern to giving different species moral concern…”
Person 1: “ But they feel pain right isn’t that all that matters?”
You: “I don’t know if I am convinced of that. Is that all that matters? Should a pig and a person have equal concern if they both feel pain?”
Person 1: “Well there probably are other considerations too but we have been quick to discount groups of moral concern in the past so I think we should be cautious of jumping to conclusions”
You: “Should we then be worried about plants? If we aren’t jumping to conclusions?”
Person 1: “Maybe… It is worth at least considering”
Go on until interrupted by the moderator
Round 2:
- You didn’t read the book and have no clue what they are talking about!
- Avoid answering at all costs
- Avoid contributing to the conversation
- If called on you can say something vague like
- “Well it is existential…”
Round 3:
- You are the moderator!
- Start by asking the group the question:
- What are the best arguments against longtermism?
Round 4:
- You think the tangent another participant is going on is dumb
- You stop paying attention and check your email
- Even if the tangent gets cut off you are now sidetracked
Round 5:
- You will support other participants raising criticisms of Effective Altruism.
- Nod along when others are being critical.
- When others are criticising EA, chime in with something like “yeah that seems really important” or build on their criticism.
- If the moderator responds to a criticism, jump in and give push-back, like “But it still seems really bad to me if we’re not doing anything about things that aren’t on some top charity list.”
8. Participant D
Round 1:
- You are quiet because two others are dominating the conversation.
- Don’t talk unless the moderator interrupts them and asks for other’s opinions.
- If the moderator interrupts them the conversation can then turn into a normal discussion.
- If asked you can say whatever you want or something like:
- “I agree we should be concerned that we are repeating history. It makes sense to think carefully about this”
Round 2:
- You know the answer but want to let others talk.
- During discussion you are generally quiet
- Only answer if called upon or if there is a silence of more than 8 seconds
- “An existential catastrophe would not only affect those directly affected but it would also mean the curtailing of future potential. All the people that otherwise would have been born won’t get to.”
Round 3:
- You will know what all the jargon means! (it is okay if you don’t actually know what it means in real life- just act like you do)
- Another participant will be using a lot of jargon, you can respond to them using the same jargon
- Don’t define the jargon unless directly asked to!
- Some things you could say:
- “I don’t know if I am convinced by the person affecting view”
- “The repugnant conclusion isn’t that repugnant”
- “I think I am more of a positive utilitarian”
Round 4:
- You are the moderator!
- Start by asking the group the question:
- “What things do you think will happen in the next 200 years that could have a large impact on the trajectory of human civilisation?”
Round 5:
- You are critical of Effective Altruism and cost-effectiveness estimates.
- Answer the moderator’s questions critically, for example:
- “I don’t think people in rich countries should be deciding who to help and who not to help? Like, each individual person matters and we can’t just decide that we’re not going to help someone in need just because some spreadsheet said we shouldn’t. ”
- You can use another criticism if you like, and you don’t have to be fair or accurate!
9. Participant E (Meta-Moderator)
Round 1:
- You are quiet because two others are dominating the conversation.
- Don’t talk unless the moderator interrupts them and asks for other’s opinions.
- If the moderator interrupts them the conversation can then turn into a normal discussion.
- If asked you can say whatever you want or something like:
- “I am suspicious of a lot of these claims… they seem sort of radical.”
Round 2:
- You know the answer but are really shy
- During discussion you are very quiet and have short responses
- Only answer if called upon:
- “An existential catastrophe would not only affect those directly affected but it would also mean the curtailing of future potential. All the people that otherwise would have been born won’t get to.”
Round 3:
- You will use excessive jargon and dominate conversation!
- Only define jargon if asked to
- Jump right in saying something along the lines of:
- “The person-affecting view feels relevant. Additionally, this makes me think about the repugnant conclusion as an argument against agrative ethics. If I were a negative utilitarian I might be pro the world ending!......
- Respond to other participants comments by using more jargon :0 (it is okay if you don’t know what these all mean)
- “Pascal’s mugger”
- “Patient longtermism”
- “Axiological strong longtermism”
- “Deonic strong longtermism”
- “Non-extinction attractor states”
- “Discounting”
- “Population Ethics”
Round 4:
- You keep wanting to say something but someone is on a tangent.
- You can keep opening your mouth with a response but closing it after the person keeps talking
- If the tangent is cut-off you can contribute normally to the conversation
Round 5:
- You are the moderator!
- Start by asking the group the question:
- “What do you think of the idea of using cost-effectiveness estimates to decide where to give or what to work on?