It’s hard to assess what counts as a good eg. career, which pushes in the direction of non-standard career options being discounted, often it may make sense for someone to focus on building career capital over working at an EA organisation, but these kinds of things are less obviously/ legibly impactful…

I agree with the general gist, but my impression is that organisations that focus on career changes and grantmakers have high epistemic humility. When looking at meta organisations focussing on career change, most seem not to break down the changes into types in their quantitative analysis. This leads to a greater focus on case studies where different aspects like prior achievements and unusual career paths can be explained. I assume there is some signalling going on between grantmakers and group organisers where a low-fidelity version might point to standard options, whereas thoughtful grantmakers showcasing a wider variety of pathways as potentially impactful can make a difference.

I like this framing and agree that most CB effort seems to go into model 1, which I also spend most of my time working on. Model 2 efforts could help people choose career paths where they upskill or do direct work in organisations that are not EA-aligned. This could reduce the frustration connected with job searches of early career individuals.

Thank you for writing this! Many of the points, especially 1-5, overlap with my experience. "It's crazy how low the bar can be for people to feel empowered." was and still is a surprise to me.

@Rebecca Kagan I've sent you a message and think it could be valuable for me and perhaps other new EV board members to get more information from you in order to learn and avoid mistakes. I'd be happy to take you up on your offer for discussion.

Please have a low bar for reaching out to me (patrick.gruban@effektiveraltruismus.de or via the forum) if you think there are things the board should be aware of or that EV’s organisations might be missing out on. The actions and inactions of the EV boards, as well as executives of EV and the housed projects, can affect many stakeholders, including employees, volunteers, grantees, funders, contractors, and the many beneficiaries of the projects. I want to make sure that we can take these into account.

Thank you, this was a very interesting read! While I didn't have time to think through all of it, the idea of adjusting the impact of salaries and profits by bands that are income-adjusted seems intuitively right. If I can choose a job with the same salary in the same industry where one employer mainly sells to people with lower income while the other sells to people with higher income, I should have a higher WELLBY impact at first. 

As a side anecdote: When I was selling the consumer product of my company at a market stand, the customers who told me they had been saving up for their $100 purchase seemed much more excited about the product and seemed to be more loyal fans. Given that they were spending a larger share of their income on the product, it seems reasonable to assume that they valued the product more on average and attributed a larger WELLBY share to it.

I like the analogy of creating muscle strength, where additional weight can create more muscles in some circumstances and injuries in others. I fear, however, that people might interpret this too narrowly, only looking at short-term altruistic actions and not a longer-term goal. When thinking about change, it's easy to get focused either on too many things or changes that are less relevant, leaving little capacity for bigger changes. Peter Wildeford's template for a quarterly review + plan discusses this using the rock, pebbles, sand analogy.

For some people, additional altruistic actions might be the most important thing now, but I think for many, it will be focusing on their careers, building skills or getting better at thinking about prioritizing where they want to be headed in their careers.

A community that encourages people to take more altruistic actions might lead people to wrongly prioritize, leading to less effective outcomes in the long run. While much comes down to individuals making their own decisions, it is harder to be part of a group where many people show signs of small altruistic actions when you're not doing this and are focussing on your career. I think what I'm feeling is a fear of an altruistic virtue-signalling competition that is used as a proxy for what we actually want: Steadily increasing our individual impact.

Personally, I think other virtues might be more helpful for building up the strength needed, as I recently wrote. Similarly, I expect others also to have different ways to impact. I think the combination of having a personal vision of being a person who will strongly value personal impact in combination with a growth and prioritization mindset who is strengthening their muscles in these areas could be a more general approach.

Commitments for Excited Altruists

I recently read the book The 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership, which I stumbled upon in Ben Todd’s Personal annual review process in the section ”What I found most useful in designing this doc”. Written by management consultants whose endorsements include one by Dustin Moskovitz, it is a self-help book for leaders interested in personal growth. 

While the approach has the usual downside of this genre in relying on stories instead of evidence and trying to fit messy things into neat lists, I found it helpful in shaping my thinking. I also think there is an overlap with viewpoints we often see in the EA movement and not only by people in leadership positions.

The book starts with the premise that there are different states of mind in which we operate, focusing on the most common ones: “to me” and “by me”. The “to me” approach is a passive viewpoint where people blame others or themselves, are reactive, and have fixed beliefs. The book is for people who want to move to a “by me” mode of taking radical responsibility for their circumstances in life, being open to new information and feelings and living from a sense of having enough in life.

The book has vibes of Californian startup culture, focussing on complete self-sufficiency while incorporating mindfulness and communicating about feelings. At one point, they describe a meeting of an investment firm where team members vocalise their upcoming feelings nonverbally before moving on to making decisions. This may be too much woo for some. However, the approach is similar to what people in the rationalist community have been writing about. If we know ourselves better and are curious about not only our thoughts but all our experiences, then we can get better at working with this to be better at what we’re doing.

The 15 commitments the authors come up with, lists the “by me” modes to be aimed at and the “to me” states many people operate under. The EA principles of open truth-seeking and collaborative spirit are reflected in the commitments of curiosity, candor, gossip, integrity, genius, “opposite of my story”, allies, win for all. Someone subscribing to these commitments will probably integrate well into an EA-aligned organisation.

The EA community is sometimes described as a do-ocracy, with people starting what is missing, giving the movement a somewhat decentralised approach. This mindset is reflected in the commitments of responsibility and “being the resolution”.

For altruistic-minded people, the commitment to enough will help with increasing donations, while the commitment to “play and rest” is a way to maximise energy.

Combining the commitments the book describes with an altruistic mindset speaks to me. I’m intuitively drawn more to the values described there than to live a life of altruistic actions (something I wrote about here). I have the feeling that I can become more impactful by applying my willpower to adhering to the commitments than, for example, becoming an organ donor or going vegan.

It may come down to the seeming dichotomy of excited vs. obligatory altruism, where the book offers a way of acting out of a feeling of curiosity and abundance and having a fun and holistic approach to life, instead of a moral obligation that requires maximising impact. It may be helpful in day-to-day life to have some principles to guide actions, and some of the ones from the book seem useful to me in growing while being in a mindset of exited altruism.

If you want to learn more about the book, here is a summary and here a breakdown by chapters.

Heroes vs. Antiheroes in EA

“Name a person that inspires you” was an Icebreaker question that recently came up in a group setting. Somebody named a person in the EA community who is showcasing a lot of altruistic qualities like working long hours in their EA-aligned job while being frugal, donating a lot, being vegan etc.. I noticed that I strongly felt resistance to this and, on reflection, saw that I admire this altruistic person a lot while not being at all inspired by them at the same time. On the contrary, I feel like a failure as I can’t imagine myself ever living up to these ideals, although I would like to do so.

Before meeting any people in the EA community outside my small local group, my views of engaged people were formed by reading EA forum posts and other writings. Through these, my impression was of a community of near-heroes that were interesting but that I would never be able to be part of. Only when I went to the first EAG conference did I meet people who excelled in some part of their activities, but they also told me about where they failed and where the needs in the community were. This was the first time that I saw that I could contribute directly.

Since then, I’ve become wary of communications that highlight the importance of many altruistic actions in the community. While I see that this can be inspiring for some people, I personally have felt and still feel the pressure of expectation from this way of communicating. It is not that I disagree. It is that I start comparing myself to an ideal and contrast it with my personal daily failings in not being the perfect being I would like to be.

So while for some people, a hero with moral clarity and the willpower to work according to their principles is inspiring, for me, it’s more the antihero I can relate to. A person who is unsure, flawed, and very human but still has the ability to reflect, grow and do some good in the world. An example could be Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre, where the protagonist experiences the meaninglessness of reality before seeing the possibilities and freedom to change. In the EA community, the 80k podcast episode on Having a successful career with anxiety, depression, and imposter syndrome would be an example, although I had more private conversations with people who shared their struggles that resonated even more.

In the opening talk of EAGxBerlin, I tried sharing my own struggles and received some positive feedback. However, I’ve been worrying if I’ve been humble bragging.

The conclusion is that what is inspiring for some could be off-putting for others and that communicating about different kinds of altruistic approaches could be helpful in reaching a broad audience of people who could decide to dedicate more of their resources to altruistic actions.