Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by ruthgrace
3 min read 2

45

Building effective altruismCommunityCriticism and Red Teaming ContestCriticism of the effective altruism communityEffective altruism groupsCriticism of work in effective altruism
Frontpage

TLDR: The goal of community building should be to build a healthy community with friendship and belonging. Pressuring people down the EA funnel is counter to this goal.

I recently became aware that it's common for community builders within EA to view their work as a tool for them to personally have impact, through encouraging others to have more impact. This can look like:

  • The community builder actively categorizes each person in their community based on their level of involvement with EA, for example "newcomer", "intro-level", "engaged", "career-changer".
  • The community builder measures their success by their ability to pull people down the funnel of EA engagement, where people who might come in interested in global health and development or animal welfare start to get interested in topics deeper down the funnel like AI safety and wild animal suffering.

Creating an environment with a social hierarchy based on impact is a recipe for a toxic community. Sasha Chapin wrote a great blog post on this.[1] Many organizers are also aware of issues in their members like burnout, depression, or low-impact angst, and perform emotional labor in helping individuals with these issues, without realizing that the organizing model itself may be the root cause of the problem.

The goal of community-building should be to create a healthy community for people trying to have impact.

  • the community is more likely to help with impact if it is designed to create friendships and a place where people feel like they belong
  • engagement with EA and impact should not be conflated

The sign of having a healthy community is that when people burn out and need to take a break from trying to have impact, they don't also feel the need to take a break from the community. The community is their refuge.

This doesn't mean that having events focused on helping people increase their impact is bad. There's a right and a wrong motivation to, say, run a workshop about the careers that the speaker thinks are the most impactful.

  • Right: you send out a survey to your community and ask what kinds of events they are interested in, and as many of them are students, they are looking for more EA perspective on their career, from someone that they can ask questions to.
  • Wrong: you feel that the careers of your community members aren't impactful enough and want to influence them to change

Good community building respects and supports members with the goals and needs they already have.

Examples of healthy community building activities meant to foster friendship and belonging

Fostering friendship

  • getting to know people in your community. knowing what's going on with their life, and being a person who cares.
  • picnics, hikes, karaoke, and other activities that are social and don't remind people of their level of impact
  • co-working[2]
  • eating meals together

Fostering belonging

  • having dedicated volunteers for greeting people new to the event
  • Making events kid-friendly for community members with children, for example by hosting events beside a playground
  • Hosting joint events with other local altruistic organizations that your members are interested in, even if they are not "EA"
  • Bringing in guest speakers from different backgrounds

Further reading

Addendum

  • It's theoretically possible to be in a situation where you have to make a choice between building an impactful community and building a healthy community, but in practice i think this is pretty unlikely
  • Thanks to Hamp, Yellow, and JDBauman for critical feedback on this idea!

Postscript

I organize every-other-month Effective Altruism picnics in San Francisco, often joint with adjacent movements like Progress Studies or YIMBY. If you're in the area and want to help contribute to a supportive, healthy, and fun community, please send me a message with your phone number. We can always use more volunteers :)

    1. Looks like the original was deleted; I linked the LessWrong linkpost. ↩︎

    2. actually the EA Gathertown, which is most commonly used for co-working, is the first EA space I've been where I've met people who are burned out of EA ↩︎

45

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Simon Holm7
0
0

I really like this point, and it sparks a few questions, confusions and thoughts I have about community building, some of which are:

(1) I believe what you are pointing at can be a good distinction between the tasks of national/regional groups vs. local groups at universities and in cities - the more local groups catering towards creating a healthy community (for example through the activities you suggested), and the bigger groups catering towards helping/"making sure" the community serves humanity in addition to itself.

(2) What do we actually mean with community building and what is the difference between a community building and movement building (and is one of them preferred)?

(3) Is what you're bringing up an example of Goodhart's law (this question may say more about my understanding of the law than about community building)? 

(4) (related to above points) I wonder if we weigh the intrinsic value of (the) EA community(s) too little, compared to its/their instrumental value, much like treating rest as a means to be, say, more productive, will make it harder to get proper rest (not sure if this is an actual thing, but I'm pretty sure there's a named concept for it which I have forgotten), and also missing out on the intrinsic value, of course! Making the community healthy would be, I guess, more of catering to the community for the community's sake, whilst also (probably) making it more likely for it/its members to have a greater impact.

Perhaps some of these points have already been adressed in previous posts on community building - would love to get tips on this!

I hope this doesn't interfere with the intent of your post; I really felt like sharing my associations! Please let me know if anything was irrelevant. Would love to hear if you have any thoughts on mine.

Reply
quinn6
0
0

Great post! 

Reply
More from ruthgrace
59
It's OK not to go into AI (for students)
ruthgrace
· · 2m read
18
18
61
How be productive before your baby turns one
ruthgrace
· · 22m read
9
9
40
Evaluating large-scale movement building: A better way to critique Open Philanthropy's criminal justice reform
ruthgrace
· · 32m read
3
3
View more
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
2
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
32
Introducing Effective Accountability: Project and Job Search Accountability Groups
2 authors
· · 2m read
1
1
15
Applications to EAGxCDMX close in a week!
cescorza
· · 2m read
0
0
View more