CHOICE - Creating a memorable acronym for EA principles

post by BrianTan · 2021-01-07T07:12:10.816Z · EA · GW · 14 comments


  Creating an acronym for my own core values
  Applying this process to EA principles
  CHOICE - a new acronym for EA principles
    An alternative
    Descriptions for each principle
  Possible counter-arguments to the principles chosen

This is a graphic I created to illustrate how the acronym can be presented. [1] [2]


Update, Jan. 12, 2021: Because of the feedback in the comments and the low upvote count here, I don't think CEA should change their guiding principles to form an acronym (or this acronym specifically) anymore. I now realize that the current principles are very carefully chosen, and I saw on their website now that a lot of organizations and people have voiced their support for the current principles. I don't think it's worth changing them to fit this acronym, since that would mean having them run through multiple organizations again, with not a strong reason for doing so.

I still think this idea is worth sharing, and other people are free to experiment in using this acronym to explain what EA is about. I think this could still be useful in explaining EA in a memorable way, and other groups can still use these when creating/drafting their core values or principles. But I wouldn't push for this to replace CEA's guiding principles anymore, or be widely adopted by most groups.

Creating an acronym for my own core values

Recently, I was doing an exercise to develop a set of five-to-seven “core values” for myself. I was able to whittle down my list of core values to six - Self-Respect, Community, Happiness, Authenticity, Impact, and Learning. I tried combining the first letters of each core value to form a memorable acronym. I wasn’t able to form a sensible word, but one acronym I came up with was “SCHAIL”.

I realized that this acronym is quite close to the word “Scale”. This is a word I use in a tentative “life mission” I’ve set for myself, which is to “Help others at scale”.

As such, I decided to change a couple of core values to synonyms so that the new acronym would be “SCALE”. So my new tentative set of core values are Self-Respect, Community, Authenticity, Learning, and Effectiveness. I had to reword “impact” into “effectiveness”, and I had to take out “happiness”. But I can easily incorporate “happiness” again by using this phrase about my values: “By living out the values of SCALE, I will experience happiness.” I thought this was a great way for me to more easily remember my core values.

Applying this process to EA principles

I then thought of doing the same process to create a memorable acronym for the guiding principles of effective altruism created by CEA. I have read these principles quite a few times already, but I still can’t remember what they are without going to the link again. As such, I think it is important to create an acronym to make these principles more memorable.

Currently, the principles are Commitment to Others, Scientific Mindset, Openness, Integrity, and Collaborative Spirit. If we take the first letters of each of these principles, we get CSOIC. Unfortunately, there’s no word that you can form out of those letters, other than the brand “CISCO”. I don’t think the EA community would want to use that acronym.

As such, I thought of coming up with five-to-seven letter words that could also be a great acronym for the principles of EA. I came up with the word “Choice”, which seems like a very apt word to use as an acronym for the principles of EA. After all, effective altruists care a lot about making the right choices, whether it’s in their choice of cause, career, or donation. “Choice” already shared a few letters with the existing acronym “CISCO”. As such, I could keep some of the existing principles, and just come up with new ones to fit the acronym.

CHOICE - a new acronym for EA principles

After some ideation, I came up with these EA principles, which have the acronym CHOICE:

  1. Cause Prioritization
  2. Helpfulness
  3. Open-Mindedness
  4. Integrity
  5. Collaboration
  6. Effectiveness

An alternative

Here’s another alternative that I came up with, where I switched “Helpfulness” to “Honesty” and “Integrity” to “Impartiality”:

  1. Cause Prioritization
  2. Honesty
  3. Open-Mindedness
  4. Impartiality
  5. Collaboration
  6. Effectiveness

However, I think it’s not as good because “honesty” isn’t the most appropriate principle for the EA community. This is because of the possibility of creating or disseminating information hazards, or of using “honesty” as an excuse to be too frank, demeaning to, and/or critical of others. I didn’t want to remove the word “Integrity” in the set of principles, since I think integrity is important to help the EA community avoid any risks to its reputation and the community’s health.

Descriptions for each principle

As such, I would like to go with Cause Prioritization, Helpfulness, Open-Mindedness, Integrity, Collaboration, and Effectiveness as the principles. I copied some of the existing descriptions or writing by CEA to create descriptions for all principles except Effectiveness, which I wrote. I then asked for feedback on this post from Aaron Gertler from CEA, who helped revise some of the descriptions below. I’m open to these being re-worded, so feel free to make suggestions.

  1. Cause Prioritization
    • Our goal is to do as much good as we can, and we evaluate ways to do that without committing ourselves at the outset to any particular cause. We are open to focusing our efforts on any group of beneficiaries, and to using any reasonable methods to help them. We expect that some causes are more promising than others. However, because we are often uncertain, and our views differ, we work across a range of different causes, rather than focusing entirely on one.
  2. Helpfulness
    • We take the well-being of others very seriously, and are willing to take significant personal action in order to benefit others. What this entails can vary from person to person, and it's ultimately up to individuals to figure out what significant personal action looks like for them. In each case, however, the most essential commitment of effective altruism is to actively try to help others as much as we can, and make the world a better place.
  3. Open-Mindedness
    • We strive to base our actions on the best available evidence and reasoning about how the world works. We recognize how difficult it is to know how to do the most good, and therefore try to avoid overconfidence, to seek out informed critiques of our own views, to be open to unusual ideas, and to take alternative points of view seriously.
  4. Integrity
    • Because we believe that trust, cooperation, and accurate information are essential to doing good, we strive to be honest and trustworthy. More broadly, we strive to follow those rules of good conduct that allow communities (and the people within them) to thrive. We also value the reputation of effective altruism, and recognize that our actions reflect on it.
  5. Collaboration
    • We affirm a commitment to building a friendly, open, and welcoming environment in which many different approaches can flourish, and in which a wide range of perspectives can be evaluated on their merits. In order to encourage cooperation and collaboration between people with widely varying circumstances and ways of thinking, we resolve to treat people of different worldviews, values, backgrounds, and identities kindly and respectfully.
  6. Effectiveness
    • We aim to figure out which interventions are most effective in solving the problems we prioritize. We have limited time and resources, so we seek out ways to get as much impact as we can for what we are able to give. We consider direct action, career choice, donations, and other options available to us to make large impact.

Possible counter-arguments to the principles chosen

  1. An argument against using “Cause Prioritization” is that it isn’t really a principle. However, I think it’s a core part of the EA community. I thought of alternatives to Cause Prioritization that also start with “C”, such as “Cause Neutrality” or “Cause Impartiality”. I think that cause neutrality and worldview diversification are important facets of EA. However, I think that cause neutrality as a principle might confuse people who aren’t as familiar with EA, and they could think that we don’t believe some causes are more promising than others. To avoid this, I chose “Cause Prioritization”.
  2. An argument against using “Helpfulness” is that reading this may lead non-EAs (or people new to the community) to think that EAs will say yes to any call for help, or that we do a lot of kind or helpful acts regularly, such as volunteering for local charities more than non-EAs. But most EAs don’t just say yes to any call for help or donations. I think this is not a strong argument though, since I think Helpfulness still encapsulates what a lot of EAs do, such as donating large amounts of their money, being helpful and considerate to each other, or helping the world in unconventional but potentially high-impact ways.

I am hoping that CEA would consider changing the guiding principles they wrote to fit this new acronym. However, if that is not possible within 2021, then maybe the group I lead (EA Philippines) or other EA groups can choose to use “CHOICE” and these principles as their own set of principles.

After all, student groups are usually asked to come up with a set of core values or principles when registering to be an official group in their university, and I think the principles I wrote with “CHOICE” would be a better set to use than CEA’s current principles. CEA doesn’t tell EA groups to use their guiding principles to be their group’s principles or core values, but I think quite a few groups, including EA Philippines currently, end up using CEA’s guiding principles, or a slightly modified version of it.

It would be good though to standardize the acronym and the words used in it across groups. This would avoid confusion when people from different EA groups talk to each other and end up discussing a different set of principles to each other, or different words under the acronym “CHOICE”. I think it could be good if these new principles and the acronym could be approved and used by CEA. Then, most groups can use these principles when they are explaining what the principles of EA are, or when creating a set of principles or core values for their own chapter.

However, I am also alright with CEA just sticking to their current guiding principles, or refining them in a different way. My suggestions could just be used by other groups who would want to draft a more memorable set of core values or principles for their group, or for people in the EA community who want to more easily remember or explain what the principles of EA are.

I am open to hearing any feedback or comments on my suggestions. I’d like to get others’ thoughts too on if they know any better acronyms or principles than the ones I’ve used. Thanks!

  1. If you want to download a .png and .svg of the graphic, you can do so through this GDrive folder. If you want to modify the graphic on Figma, where I made it, you can access it here. The icons were taken from the Figma plugin called Iconify.* ↩︎

  2. I could imagine a graphic like this being used or tested in an Intro to EA slides presentation to explain what EA is and what its principles are. ↩︎


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-07T13:40:38.494Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

1-2 people seem to have downvoted. I'd like to know why people downvoted if you're willing to share your thoughts/feedback!

Replies from: Misha_Yagudin
comment by Misha_Yagudin · 2021-01-08T01:12:20.862Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I weakly downvoted.  I felt meh about coming up with better acronyms because

  • it feels low-fidelity and I would rather have people forget/rephrase EA principles rather than learn them by heart;
  • guiding principles should not be changed frequently and without great need.

Also, I disliked the proposed acronym because

  • pro-life/pro-choice associations;
  • while choice is a generic word, it is associated with the choice/obligation debate within the community, which makes it not a very good choice.
Replies from: BrianTan
comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-08T03:29:03.908Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for sharing. I think all of those are valid points to raise.

  • On it being low-fidelity: I understand it is a bit low-fidelity, but I think it's more likely it would lead to good outcomes than bad outcomes. I don't expect or want people to learn these by heart anyway - it's just one way to phrase/frame what the principles are.
  • On guiding principles being changed frequently: I think this is the more valid point. 

Regarding the proposed acronym:

  • I didn't consider the pro-life/pro-choice association, although I think most people wouldn't associate it with that, so I don't think this should be an issue. 
  • I also didn't think people would associate it with the choice/obligation debate. And even if people did, my guess is people are leaning on EA being a choice rather than an obligation.

So far, the acronyms CARING and SOCIAL have been suggested. I like the acronym CARING more, so if people agree with the value of using an acronym, but dislike the word CHOICE, CARING could be used.

comment by Guy Raveh · 2021-01-07T18:03:09.513Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I think the loss of the “Scientific Mindset” principle is compensated enough by adding “Cause Prioritization” and “Effectiveness” to the list of principles.

I disagree. I think these are part of the EA dogma but are not the same as having a scientific mindset.

I would maybe suggest SOCIAL:

Scientific mindset Openness Collaborative spirit Integrity ALtruism

Replies from: BrianTan
comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-07T23:56:17.679Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I disagree. I think these are part of the EA dogma but are not the same as having a scientific mindset.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. And you helped me realize that I could easily add back in "Scientific Mindset" if I make the acronym "CHOICES". The only downside is that having 7 principles instead of 6 though makes it slightly harder and longer to explain. So because of this downside, I'm still uncertain on whether to use CHOICE or CHOICES.

I guess other people can see whether they'd want to add Scientific Mindset to the principles or not, and they can use CHOICE or CHOICES depending on their preference. What do you think about that?

comment by RandomEA · 2021-01-07T08:53:48.497Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I really like the idea of an acronym! Thank you for taking the time to create one and write a post about it. If I may, I'd like to add another option to the table:



Reasoning carefully


Norms (integrity, inclusion etc.)

Greatest impact

I like the word "caring" because it pushes back against the idea that a highly deliberative approach to altruism is uncaring. 

Replies from: BrianTan
comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-07T09:05:19.105Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I like the word caring too, so this is an interesting suggestion! A couple of comments:

  1. Would "rationality" be better than "reasoning carefully"?
  2. Terms that are two words tend to be harder to remember for acronyms, so that's why I'd go with "rationality" rather than "reasoning carefully". Greatest impact isn't also ideal because it's two words, and it isn't a usual phrase used in the community.
Replies from: RandomEA, mike_mclaren
comment by RandomEA · 2021-01-08T02:58:33.087Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I agree that one word is better but I think this factor is less important than other factors like clarity. Because of this, I think "Helping others" would be better than "Helpfulness."

I also think the placement of "Cause prioritization" and "Collaboration" should be switched in the primary proposal so that "Cause prioritization" is next to "Effectiveness."

And in the alternative proposal, I think "Cause prioritization" should be replaced with "Commitment to others."

I strongly prefer "reasoning carefully" to "rationality" to avoid EA being too closely associated with the rationality community and people's perceptions of it. Notably, in his post defining effective altruism [EA · GW], William MacAskill uses "careful reasoning."

As for "greatest impact," I think it works reasonably well in a sentence combining all six values: the EA community uses evidence and careful reasoning to identify causes and approaches that allow for the greatest impact from an altruistic and impartial perspective and pursues those causes and approaches in a collaborative and norm-respecting manner.

comment by mike_mclaren · 2021-01-08T00:11:09.132Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I have very little skin in the game here, as I don't personally have a strong desire for an acronym...but my 2 cents are that "Reasoning carefully" can be shortened to "Reasoning" (or "Reason") for this purpose with no loss - the "careful" part is implied. And I think I identify more with the idea of using careful reasoning than rationality. "Reason(ing)" also matches an existing short definition of EA as "Using reason and evidence to do the most good" (currently the page title for

comment by Manuel_Allgaier · 2021-01-09T16:06:20.816Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I see the motivation, but to me, the CEA Guiding Principles seem very carefully chosen and better than the suggestions here (though they are not bad either). I would be worried that CHOICE or another acronym would crowd out the Guiding Principles simply because it is easier to remember, while being worse content-wise (in my opinion).

(if relevant I can elaborate on why the Guiding Principles seem better to me)

Replies from: BrianTan
comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-10T06:42:02.916Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Yeah I do see now how they're very carefully chosen, and I just saw on their website and remembered now that a lot of organizations and people have voiced their support for these principles. I don't think it's worth changing them to fit this acronym, since that would mean having them run through multiple organizations again, with not a strong reason for doing so.

From the comments on this post, I realize this isn't that good of an idea anymore. I still think it was worth sharing, and other people are free to experiment in using this acronym to explain what EA is about. But I wouldn't push for it anymore to replace CEA's current guiding 


Replies from: Manuel_Allgaier
comment by Manuel_Allgaier · 2021-01-12T11:29:02.767Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for getting back to me and for being open to updating your opinion! :)

If you no longer endorse some of your original thoughts here (replacing CEA's guiding principles), I would consider editing the article and putting a note on top or at the respective parts, else people who only read the article (and not all comments here) miss the update and still think you propose to change CEA's guiding principles.  

Replies from: BrianTan
comment by BrianTan · 2021-01-12T13:45:35.949Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Good point. I've edited the article and added an update now at the end of the summary! Thanks

comment by Manuel_Allgaier · 2021-01-09T16:05:47.835Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I see the motivation, but to me, the CEA Guiding Principles seem very carefully chosen and better than the suggestions here (though they are not bad either)*. I would be worried that CHOICE or another acronym would crowd out the Guiding Principles simply because it is easier to remember, while being worse content-wise (in my opinion).

*if relevant I can elaborate on that.