Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by VictorW
4 min read 2

20

CommunityBuilding effective altruismCommunity projectsSurveysDiversity and inclusionSelf-care and wellbeing in the effective altruism communityEffective altruism groupsOnline effective altruism communities
Frontpage

Last September I started wondering if people would be interested in being part of a neurodivergent online subcommunity within EA. I mentioned this idea at the Mental Health meetup at EAGxAustralia 2023, and after further contemplation I made an interest survey to try and get a less vague sense of what people actually wanted, how many people, and how those wants could potentially be met. Then I shared this survey widely among all neurodivergent-affiliated participants on Swapcard at EAGxVirtual 2023.

The main purposes of this post are:

  1. To share the survey results, for general curiosity but also as a thank you to those who participated, most of whom also indicated an interest in seeing the results.
  2. To present my assessment of potential and provide context as to why I've sidelined this idea.
  3. Something I learned from this process.
  4. To provide some background context for my upcoming post regarding a larger online community-building project I drafted and also decided not to pursue.

1. Summary of results

Results for closed-ended questions [PDF]

(Shameless teaser:) The results I found most interesting were from "What types of things would you want to see as part of the online community, and how personally relevant would those elements be for you?"

My subjective summary of responses to open-ended questions (not included for anonymity reasons):

  • Suggestions and ideas
  • A surprising number of participants were interested in helping out in specific ways
  • Lots of lovely, thoughtful, supportive, or appreciative comments

2. My estimate of potential as a community project

I have some experience with organizing online and offline social groups, and instead of presenting the exact 5-10 different heuristic calculations behind my vibe, I'm just going to state my intuitive estimation[1]:

If someone set up an online neurodivergent community in the very regular way of making it a public opt-in group, advertised in places like the EA Forums, other EA+ forums, and the dozen or so EA+ Slack/Discord/Facebook/WhatsApp groups, I would expect the "natural size" of the community to be such that the number of total lurkers (active and inactive members) reach the low hundreds within a few years, with fewer than 10% of members engaging on a monthly basis, and if monthly online social events were to be held, the expected turnout would be fewer than 10 members. This isn't a pessimistic estimate, it's simply what would be consistent with how online groups usually are, given how relatively few EAs there are globally, let alone EAs who participate in any online group, let alone EAs who participate in any online group at least once a month, etc etc.

If this online neurodivergent community were the most successful group in all of the history of EA online groups, relative to the actually addressable market of active online neurodivergent EAs, I would still expect the turnout at events to be lower than 30 members.[2]

I think fostering the group so that it reaches 10 active event-attending members is already a harder-than-one-might-think goal, especially for a timeline of 1-2 years. I can think of less typical approaches that could result in exceeding this goal (such as relying on word of mouth, peer influence, pitching to EA Virtual Program participants, and getting advertised on one of the EA+ newsletters with the biggest readerships), but this requires consistent effort and some luck, and I would be tempted to argue that this defeats the purpose of the online community in that it would no longer be about neurodivergent folks fitting in so much as trying to have a good turnout.[3]

Personally, the overall potential impactful was not high enough for me, but since I had been exploring how an active community might be fostered at all, I then considered a larger and encapsulating idea: what if the intention was to consolidate and boost both existing and future online EA groups? And if that project was worthwhile, then I could easily include the infrastructure for a neurodivergent subcommunity, whether or not I was invested as an organizer within that or someone else was. But that is a subject of another post.

3. Something I learned

I don't have any amazing insights to share, just this one anecdote.

I was feeling very conflicted before I sent out my survey to almost 80 ND-affiliated EAGxVirtual participants via Swapcard. But I'm glad I did though, because the results were pleasantly surprising. People didn't accuse me of being a spammer or call me out on unsolicited promotion of my survey, even though I was afraid of being perceived as wasting people's time. Instead, more than 40% of the people I messaged filled out the survey, with 80% of those that did responding positively to my message. Take what you will from that, but hopefully something in the direction of it being a good idea to overcome fear and reach out more on Swapcard!

4. What now with online community building?

One of the main draws I had to this neurodivergent group idea in the first place is that I see a lot of potential in creating ND-specific resources, such as:

  • Info directories of good books, YouTubers, podcasts, courses, etc.
  • Curated material, some of which may be improved encapsulations of important ideas that aren't so accessible or systematically captured by neurodivergent literature at present. For example, neurodivergent productivity seems not well represented.
  • Community contacts who can help others with their niche interests.

I still value this and am personally interested in contributing, but have opted to prioritize and pursue this in a much different way.

I have a lot more to share regarding my exploration of online community-building ideas within EA, and that will hopefully appear in a separate and much more in-depth post. Those ideas aren't really specific to this neurodivergent community idea, so I haven't included them here.

If anyone is inclined to make something happen with the ND community idea, I'm happy to share my background research or connect you with potential collaborators.[4]

  1. ^

    I would be mildly curious to hear from organizers who have anecdotal experiences that deviate significantly from my projections. Besides that, I am uninterested in defending my heuristics/estimates, also knowing that shifting the estimates won't change my current direction anyway.

  2. ^

    One can gauge a realistic upper bound on the turnout by looking at the turnout for a popular one-off online EA social event, e.g. one of the meetups at EAGxVirtual.

  3. ^

    If only Goodhart hadn't invented his law...

  1. ^

    It's worth noting that the furthest effort so far in setting up a ND community is this Discord channel: EA Mental Health & nEArodivergent Support

Show all footnotes

20

0
0
3

Reactions

0
0
3

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
SummaryBot1
0
2

Executive summary: The author surveyed interest in an online neurodivergent community within EA, but based on the results and their experience decided not to pursue organizing it currently, though they may incorporate related ideas into a broader online community-building effort.

Key points:

  1. Over 40 survey respondents expressed interest in an online neurodivergent EA community, but expected participation still seems low.
  2. The author estimates at most 30 members would actively participate even in a highly successful neurodivergent EA community.
  3. They learned people responded positively when messaged about the survey on Swapcard.
  4. They still see value in creating neurodivergent-specific resources and contacts within the EA community.
  5. The author has explored larger-scale EA online community building ideas to pursue instead.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
46
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
22
Call For a University of Minnesota EA Group
Kenneth_Diao
· · 2m read
1
1
49
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
8
8
View more