Epistemic status: some vague thoughts about the value of 1-1s but also how I respond to negative thoughts. There’s some great advice on how to run 1-1s here.
I still find it pretty surreal that my full-time job is to talk to people about career stuff (and a fair bit of admin)- I mean I’m 23- who am I to be giving careers advice?
I think it’s quite common in EA in general for people to feel underqualified about things they are qualified for, (see this post on imposter syndrome), so I don’t think the fact that I feel underqualified is a good reason to think that I actually am underqualified. CBT highlights that we can make systematic mistakes in our thinking, such as under confidence (example list of mistakes). I’ve found 2 broad approaches helpful to respond to my thoughts that might be inaccurate: looking at the evidence, and acting despite my uncertainty.
Looking at the evidence
This involves thinking about the ways 1-1s are helpful and thinking about whether you can provide that value (spoiler alert: you probably can).
Ways I think 1-1s are helpful
- Information- 1-1 allows you to communicate information especially well as you can respond to people’s questions and hear their thought processes and therefore their misconceptions. This might sound like it requires a lot of knowledge but I think someone who has completed an Intro Fellowship probably has enough background to respond to most misconceptions. However, sometimes I worry about people asking questions I don’t know the answer to- I think I can still be helpful to them in these cases by acting as a sounding board or signposting other people or resources. I often think of my role as similar to the role of a GP- a (UK) doctor that helps people by referring them to specialists, rather than knowing things themselves.
- Motivation- EA ideas are abstract, and often people can be convinced of the ideas cognitively but not emotionally. Personal interactions help you bridge this gap as you can communicate your enthusiasm for EA ideas in a much more personal and genuine way. People seemed enthused by me taking the time to speak to them individually and crucially me being happy to actively listen to their ideas. Moreover, you can frame the ideas in terms they’re excited by. While being more personable helps here, I think anyone can be helpful just by being an attentive listener.
- Being a future point of contact- by being a friendly face for them in the group, you can become a go-to person for them to ask questions.
- Being a sounding board- just by asking open questions and summarizing their thoughts back to them they can surprise themselves with how much they can figure out.
- Signposting- this is about providing personalised recommendations for resources and programmes. This could be your fellowships, but also standard opportunities like 80,000 hours advising, and you could even send them job opportunities when they come up after your chat. The value of signposting is far more than just you pointing out that something exists, you can provide a more personal case that it’s for them which provides them with some more motivation to actually use it.
- You can always follow up with accountability; asking when they’d like to read/ apply, and checking in. (I was originally worried that giving accountability could be pushy, but framing it like “I don’t know about you, but if I don’t have a deadline I probably won’t do something- would it be helpful for me to check in on this in a week?”)
I think the above points of value do relate to skills that people can improve upon, but I think as someone who has done an intro fellowship, is vaguely friendly and is familiar with these types of opportunities, you can be really helpful.
Acting despite my uncertainty
Sometimes when there’s a lot of self doubt it’s not really feasible for me to carefully dismantle all of my inaccurate thoughts. This is where I find cognitive diffusion helpful- just separating myself from my thoughts, so rather than saying ‘I don’t know enough’ I say ‘I’m having the thought that I don’t know enough.’ I don’t have to believe or argue with the thought, I can just acknowledge it and return to what I’m doing.
In cases when I’m genuinely uncertain about whether I’m good enough, or even endorse the idea that I’m probably not good enough, I find the concept of Upside Bargains helpful. I consider the act of having a career conversation to be part of a set of risks called Upside Bargains: choices that are unlikely to work out (I’m unlikely to positively influence someone’s career), if they do work out it’s amazing (some of their career impact I get to claim credit for hehe) and if they don’t it’s ok (oh no, I had a cool chat with an interesting person). Before coming across this concept, I didn’t want to take these risks because I thought taking them implied that I believed they would work out (which feels cocky), but now I just think about what happens if they don’t work out and realise that I’m completely fine with it.
So, when I’m thinking about having a 1:1 with a scarily smart sounding person, I
- Focus on the sources of value I can provide (friendliness and signposting)
- Realise that my thoughts of being unqualified are just thoughts (brains are dumb) that I don’t have to believe (cognitive diffusion)
- Act anyway, because it would be amazing if I could help them with their career, just a little bit.
Nice post, Alex.
Clearer Thinking has launched a program to learn cognitive diffusion.