Bleg: Read and learn, or become an activist?

Read and learn. Then get a high paying job and pay people to be activists.

The marginal effect of one more activist with low social standing and low purchasing power especially with popular causes is near zero. For example I might think that global warming exists, has negative effects and these can be averted by reducing energy consumption. Then I could start nagging my friends about this particular issue, to reduce their energy consumption through ever more inconvenient measures. Or I could study my ass off on physics, chemistry and engineering until I find a way to conveniently reduce energy consumption through some convenient, affordable invention.

Or say there is some issue that needs popular awareness. The marginal effect of this young student nagging his local neighbourhood will be near zero. If he reads and studies he can get in a position to influence policy if that is needed, or build a reputation as a journalist to reach an extremely wide audience, or the student can get in a position with high amount of disposable income to buy ad space in cooperation with an existing organisation supporting the cause.

My argument comes down to time preference. If the marginal value of action now is lower than the time discounted marginal value the student can provide after reading and studying, they should read and study. In other words, any non-emergency should not be dealt with, assuming high return on education.

I close this sleep-deprived comment with a last example. People get in accidents on the road and suffer disabilites or die as a result of that. Activism is then to scour the roads and help these people in case there is an accident. Or one could study and become an EMT, then being able to help better. Or one could become a safety engineer, improve safety measures and have an even greater impact. Or one could become an emergency response manager and having an even greater impact. As we see, the options are only available if the person in question is to be expected to become sufficiently more productive. A first aid course will immensely increase the efficacy of nearly anyone. Though the majority of people lack the dedication to become a high performing medical doctor or emergency response manager.

And as always, if there is an oversupply of high-skilled people, being an activist is more valuable through marginal value argument. Though I am entirely certain that there is an oversupply of activism because activism feels good and learning is a chore for most people.

Beware false dichotomies. Why are these options exclusive?

Study and learning is required to understand the theory of a topic. Active participation is required to understand the social clusters that form around a topic. If you want to have an effect on the world, you need a bit of both. Exactly where the balance is varies widely, but you should avoid the idea that you can skip either one.

I was a high school student deeply interested in a particular social or political issue and interested in doing something about the subject. My advice to my high school self (which my high school self would not have followed) would be to join the military. Buckminster Fuller credits his time in the Navy with initiating his thinking about global resources and some of his mathematics. Military experience would have helped me do what I do now better. I think it would do many young people better.

The capability of a random high school student to affect any of the issues you've mentioned is pretty much zero. He can be a foot soldier in an activist army and get some warm fuzzies out of it, but his impact is going to be negligible.

In Germany we have political parties that are open and that matter in the political landscape. If you want to do something about a political issue then it's very ineffective to see yourself as an activist because that means you usually aren't around the people who make policy decisions and you are an outsider from their perspective.

In Berlin there's nothing stopping a high school student from sitting in the rooms in which the educational policy agenda of the main political parties is made.

The adult might even like having you there to have your perspective which is different from their own. That doesn't mean that they will do everything that you want, but you might contribute ideas.

In Germany the recommendation would be to focus on joining one political party and paying your dues in it. Pick one political issue in which you want to contribute. Research that issue and try to get motion on the topic passed within the party infrastructure. At best you also read what other people outside of your party have to say about the issue.

If you are in the process of writing a motion on topic X, it might be easy to simple tell other civil society actors in that space to say: "Hey, I'm in the process of writing a motion on topic X for the next party congress of party X. I want to have your thoughts on the matter." Then you go out and meet people to refine your thinking. The best learning happens by talking to knowledgable people

Solving societal issues is not about doing the obvious things but about understand the issues and the stakeholders in the issue.

Focus your energy. I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to contribute. Most people don't produce change because they don't focus or because they rather associate with people who are like themselves than sitting in rooms with serious people.

Doing this builds also the connections that you need to have a political career in Germany.

There seem to be plenty of cases where some seems to think it's a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist in favour of law X, and other people think it's a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist against law X. Same goes for politician Y or party Z. And people also seem inclined to donate money for/against law X / politician Y/party Z.

(In your lists, Effective Altruism, World Peace and Global Warming don't fall under this pattern, but immigration, crime and maybe educational policy do)

Two possible explanation:

• People are stupid, and pick causes for reasons that are very unrelated to how good they actually are -> in this case, additional effort figuring out which causes are actually worthwhile seems much better.
• People are actually acting out of self-interest, in order to give "their group" more power and prestige and influence as opposed to "their group", in which case, it's not irrational, but it's also not really something that admirable either.

There's also the combination, where hapless irrational activists are suckered into spending energy in support of something that is just some kind of power play by a group they're not really part of.

Anyway, "read and learn" seems better both for figuring out which issues are worthy of support, and for figuring out how to better support those issues.

Suppose a high school student is deeply interested in a particular social or political issue and interested in doing something about the subject. What advice would you give him/her?

"Read the Politics is the Mindkiller Sequence."

And then, some of the other suggestions in this thread.

I think the best option is to try to get as close as possible to the most effective person that the highschool student can find working on that cause. This might be through volunteering, through an internship, or through simply asking to shadow them. I believe this would net more value than reading or direct activism.

• Select one and only one cause to join that you really care about.
• Activism is useful for networking as already mentioned. Treat it as a tool, not as an achievement.
• Read to find out what really needs to change. What are the root causes? What keeps the movement from being effective?
• Again select just one of these according to your abilities.
• Edit: Oh and please just do it. Don't get lost in "I will be more effective by earning money and paying someone to do it." mindgames. You can't pay them to actually care, they will do a lousy job. Find something you can do and grow with the challenge!

I think the only real answer is "both".

First you need to read and learn and study everything you can about the issue. Make sure your challenge your own beliefs, and make sure you do everything you can to confirm that you are correct, keeping in mind that the worst possible outcome would be for you to accidentally become an activist for the wrong side of an issue (and that even being an activist that's right 70% of the time but wrong 30% of the time is a great deal of harm.)

Once you really understand it, then you need to become an activist on the issue. Learning is always helpful, but at some point you have to take that knowledge and use it to influence the world, or else it's not going to do much good. Take that knowledge you've learned and use it to educate other people, to communicate to politicians, to raise the stature of the issue, ect.

Fundamentally, a lot of political issues come down to helping people understand why X is better then Y for most of them and for the country or the town or the species as a whole. You need to have a significant amount of understanding yourself first, or else there's no point and you're not adding anything but randomness to the system; once you do have a significant amount of understanding, you have to take that knowledge and act, or else it's not doing anyone any good. That doesn't mean you stop learning; you always have to do both.