Hide table of contents

What did we do?

As organizers of the EA group at UC Irvine (UCI), we ran a reading group on Julia Galef’s book The Scout Mindset during the final 5 weeks of the academic year (2022-2023). The group had a total of 8 participants with an average of 5 per session. Compared to attendance rates earlier in the academic year, this is about average. The group was diverse in both gender and ethnicity. All participants committed to reading 1 section (i.e. 3 chapters) per week prior to our 1-hour in-person discussions. As organizers, we prepared questions to help guide the discussions. Straight after, we went out to dinner together to continue our conversations about The Scout Mindset, Effective Altruism and any personal updates. 
 

Why did we do it?

This academic year we experimented with different program structures. In the first 10 weeks, we ran the EA Introductory Program; in the second 10 weeks, we ran our own version of the EA In-Depth Program. In the last 10 weeks, we spent the first half running weekly workshops and the second half running the reading group. We decided to run a reading group because we thought it would provide structured weekly content and that it would be fairly easy to organize because we needed only to read the relevant chapters, make notes and devise questions (we had already booked a classroom on a weekly basis). We chose The Scout Mindset in particular because many of our members had expressed an interest in reading the book and we too had been intending to read it ourselves. Running this reading group kept us motivated to read the book from beginning to end by holding us accountable.
 

What went well?

We successfully completed the book in the intended time without losing participants (except for one who went to Boston). Our prepared questions were useful in guiding our discussions without constraining them. They also helped spark new discussions and allowed us to focus on the present discussion without frantically scouring our minds for the next question to ask. The questions we created encouraged participants to connect what they had read to their own experiences. We found that participants were more enthused by these types of questions than by straightforward terminological questions. They were also supportive and encouraging of others, which helped everyone feel comfortable sharing their personal stories. Notably, this included someone in our group with social anxiety. We were able to engage her in the discussion (in such a way that she felt comfortable) by sending her the questions in advance, enabling her to read out her answers, which she often connected to her own experiences in amazingly insightful ways.

 

What went badly?

Although the questions that encouraged the members to share their experiences were helpful, sometimes the discussion would go too far off-topic. We think we might have been too hesitant to interrupt and bring the discussion back on track. Separately, we could have promoted the reading group beyond our EA group. Since The Scout Mindset is not a book about altruism — nevermind effective altruism — other students, with little or no interest in EA, might have been interested in joining our reading group. Had we promoted the reading group more widely, we might have even attracted additional students to our upcoming EA Introductory Program. On the other hand, we were very satisfied with the number of participants in our group. Had more attended, the discussion might have been more diluted.

 

Conclusion

Overall, we were glad to have run this reading group and plan to run another reading group during the same time next year, after running the intro and in-depth programs earlier in the academic year.

Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Nice one, thanks for sharing your experience and the discussion questions. I am thinking of trying this out with my local group, will let you know how we get on :)

Great! I'd love to hear how it goes!

Hi again! We finally did it ;) Your discussion questions were really helpful, thanks again for sharing them. I'd also love to make a few suggestions to them, if possible?

Yay! I'm glad they were helpful for your group! Suggest away! I think I've given everyone with the link commenting permission so you can comment directly on the doc or contact me directly (details on my profile page).

Thanks Neil, I've left some suggested changes (mostly just additional questions I found worked well) in your doc :)

Thanks a lot! I've approved them and added you as a co-author :)

Wonderful! Many thanks :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under