Hi Maya, glad to hear that that was the outcome of your deeper dive. If you're comfortable, I think it might be good if you edited in a comment about this to your top-level post (and maybe that's what Constance meant?), because a lot of people read posts but then don't read the comments, and so they might not otherwise know you updated about this (very important-seeming, to me) question (like something like "Edit: after checking out some of the claims raised in the comments, I now think the situation was more like [whatever you think]")
When will people hear back about their applications? I think if I were to do something like this, I'd want to plan it well in advance, so hear back soon
The weirdness Linch points at makes sense to me. Other kinds reactions that channel enthusiasm that seem good to me
"This is very cool, I'm excited other people also see promise in this work, and I can't wait to get started"
"I'm honored by the trust that's been placed in me, I take it seriously and will strive to live up to it"
Or/and you could just generally thank everyone in EA who seems to be doing important jobs well
[Edit: this whole comment makes less sense after Julia's edits. Thanks for helping out with my questions, Julia.]
I'm not trying to be oblivious or facetious, but I don't really understand what it means when Julia and other people say "it's okay to leave EA" or "it's fine to leave if you need to" or conversely for someone else to say, perhaps to themselves "it's not okay to leave EA". It doesn't feel... concrete enough? For me to make sense of. I want to taboo the words "fine" and "okay" to try to understand better.
Sometimes EA is hard for me and I want to leave and I'm like "is it fine? Is it okay?" And like, damn, that seems like a really hard question.
I directionally agree with "My guess is that if you feel like you’re drowning, you need to disrupt something about your circumstances, and you’ll eventually be more able to do good work (in EA or outside EA) than if you’d continue struggling in the same place.", especially if people have felt like they're drowning for months instead of e.g. hours.
Some things people could interpret this post as meaning:
Huh, I don't feel very sold on this point.
Regarding your (1), the idea that the term is unwelcoming and hierarchical, it doesn't really seem that way to me (and certainly doesn't seem that way to me). I hear people talk about hardcore gamers, Christians, sports fans, Republicans, rock and roll enthusiasts, and tons of other things, including both the people in these groups and outsiders looking in on them, all without sounding like they think the hardcoreness is necessarily good, admirable, or high-status. So the term doesn't really feel connotated the way you suggest, and thus doesn't really seem unwelcoming or hierarchical to me. (And this is related to the below point; you seem to think the term is more positive than I think it is so think it does more to make all the different aspects of what people mean by the term sound better than I think it does).
I think people feel excluded by it being highlighted to them that other people are more hardcore than them (or, if you prefer, any of "Are actually having a significant positive impact on the world" "Are deeply committed to overarching EA principles, e.g. impartiality, cost effectiveness, cause prioritization, etc." "Are deeply embedded in the current EA community, e.g. buying into the community’s specific priorities/frameworks, spending lots of time with other EAs, etc." "Work themselves extremely hard to try to maximize impact") if they don't believe themselves to be the same way and think others see that thing as good. And you know, it's the case that some people aren't hardcore EAs (or aren't far in the directions you suggest make up the term), and other people in the community maybe think that's worse than if they were more hardcore, but I think getting rid of the term just (somewhat) obscures an important facet of reality (that people vary on these dimensions, that some people think it's good to move farther in one direction on the relevant dimensions), and will only make people feel better inasmuch as it obscures reality from them.
And on the second point, about distorting thinking... it's always the case that using categories obscures some detail about within-category differences. I guess the relevant thing is whether they are useful/carves nature at its joints. I happen to think "hardcore EA" does (e.g. I think your sub-points 1-4 are pretty correlated), but that's debatable. But just saying that there are different dimensions at play (including positive and negative ones) doesn't mean the category isn't useful.
Finally, sorry, but I kind of don't believe you actually don't think the term "hardcore EA" or the category/cluster it refers to is useful, otherwise it seems weird to suggest alternate terms (“Super bought-in EAs.” or “Drank the kool-aid EAs.”) instead of lobbying for abolishing the category entirely.
Do you think MIRI at that time was exciting? Do you think other people should think that? (Genuinely asking, and not even necessarily from a MIRI-skeptical position. It seems possible that MIRI at the time was pretty unproductive and unpromising, and also that MIRI at different times was better, and that funding didn't necessarily help that transition take place).
There is this thing, the EA Mental Health Navigator
Interesting! I totally didn't interpret the story as being particularly supportive of cancel culture or indicating that the statue should be removed. I read it more as a straightforward meditation on what extrapolating various current trends might look like, without doing much to nudge the readers towards a particular stance on those trends or on that outcome.
OTOH my impression is that the Funds aren't very funding-constrained, so it might not make sense to heavily weigh your first two reasons (though all else equal donor satisfaction and increased donation quantity seems good).
I also think there are just a lot of grants that legitimately have both a strong meta/infrastructure and also object-level benefit and it seems kind of unfair to grantees that provide multiple kinds of value that they still can only be considered from one funding perspective/with focus on one value proposition. If a grantee is both producing some kind of non-meta research and also doing movement-building, I think it deserves the chance to maybe get funded based on the merits of either of those value adds.
In the 'Number of New Groups' chart, and where it says "It appears that growth has stalled since a dramatic surge in 2015, with roughly 30 groups starting per year since 2015.", is this on net/does this take into account old groups disbanding? Or does it assume groups don't disband?