All of projectionconfusion's Comments + Replies

I have a job outside EA where reputation is a concern, so as is normal for people in such industries I post mostly anonymously online, and start new accounts periodically to prevent potential information leakage. If the only way to engage with EA discussion online was under my  real name I wouldn't do so.

That's probably on the extreme end, but I think lots of people exist somewhere on this spectrum.  If that is disallowed or discouraged you get a situation where only "professional EAs" who have merged their real life reputation and their EA reputation would comment in discussions or be listened to. Which seems like a recipe for increased group think and insularity. 

We all agree expanding the moral circle is an end in itself so this seems obviously correct

How do you define "wokeness"? The term is often used very broadly as a placeholder for vaguely culturally left things the writer dislikes, broad enough that anyone in the audience can feel like its referring to specifically the things they dislike. And there's often a degree of strategic ambiguity/motte and bailey in how its used. 

 I also didn’t seek adequate backup given that I was friends with Owen. (Owen and I live in different countries and were not close friends, but we and our families have spent social time together.) When the woman in the TIME piece told me that her concern was about Owen, I flagged to her that I was friends with him. She and I decided to proceed anyway because we couldn’t think of a better option, although she felt it was unhealthy for EA that people who had power were entwined in these ways. 

This seems to be a recurring issue in a lot of the rece... (read more)

I think EA has a particular problem where the emphasis on getting people who are "value aligned" means they don't get in experienced people from outside. Software startups have at least learned to bring in an experienced COO to help run day to day things

I feel like there's also an ambiguity in the term "community" being used to both mean: 

• A relatively small and tightly knit social group of people in specific areas who know each-other in real life; 
• And a larger global community of people who are involved in EA to varying levels, but it doesn't make up the majority of their social life. 

A lot of the posts about EA community issues seems to be implicitly about the stereotypical "people who go to Bay Area house parties" community. Which is not representative of the wider community of people who might attend EA conferences, work/volunteer in EA orgs or donate. 

I have a job outside EA where reputation is a concern, so as is normal for people in such industries I post mostly anonymously online, and start new accounts periodically to prevent potential information leakage. If the only way to engage with EA discussion online was under my  real name I wouldn't do so.

That's probably on the extreme end, but I think lots of people exist somewhere on this spectrum and it would probably be bad for the movement if discussions were limited to only people willing to post under their real names, or persistent identities, as that would exacerbate problems of insularity and group think.

This is not just a question of the attitude of EA employers but of wider society. I have been involved in EA for a long time but now work in a professional role where reputation is a concern, so do all my online activity pseudonymously. 

I would dislike it if it became the norm that people could only be taken seriously if they posted under their real names, and discussion was reserved for "professional EAs". And that would probably be bad for the variety of perspectives and expertise in EA discussions. 

I'm not particularly young anymore, and work in a non-EA field where reputation is a concern, which is a large part of why I post pseudonymously. I think it would be bad if it became the norm that people could only be taken seriously if they posted under their real names, and discussion was reserved for "professional EAs". 

Very interesting seeing your process for all this, thanks for laying it out.

On the tractability and neglectedness questions, how do you account for other interventions that impact child marriage rates? I'd assume that programs aimed at general economic growth and education also raise average marriage ages

Thanks for writing this. Do you have any advice on getting a financial advisor? I've been wanting to hire one as a one-off to check I'm doing everything right. But not sure how to find a good person

Why is big tent EA an end in itself? The EA movement exists for the purpose of doing good, not for having a movement. If multiple smaller movements are more effective at doing good then we should do that. 

Multiple groups make it easier to specialise and avoid having single points of failure. Though you lose some economies of scale and coordination benefits. 

I don't want to throw cold water on your enthusiasm. But I think you are underestimating the difficulty of getting anything potentially politically controversial published in China in the current climate and the potential downside risks of coming to the attention of the Chinese government in such an area. 

Given the recent crackdowns on NGOs and civil society in China this would entail a very genuine risk of the related organisations being banned from operating in China, and make the government more likely to suppress EA idea in general. Which is a very high risk for the low odds of a single book meaningfully changing public opinion, and which is very unlikely to be published. 

I've had similar feelings to Alice. Part of it is that group membership serves a role of signalling information about yourself to others. Its very different to describe yourself to others as an EA when the primary association with it is "slightly weird but well meaning group of charitable people" vs when its "those weird crypto/eugenics people". And in the latter case you are better off moving to labelling yourself as something else 

EA seems to have a bit of a "not invented here" problem, of not taking onboard tried and tested mechanisms from other areas. E.g. with the boring standard conflict of interest and transparency mechanisms that are used by charitable organisations in developed countries. 

Part of this seems to come from only accepting ideas framed in certain ways, and fitting cultural norms of existing members. (To frame it flippantly, if you proposed a decentralised blockchain based system for judging the competence of EA leaders you'd get lots of interest, but not if y... (read more)

My own observation has been that people are open to intellectual discussion (your discounting formula is off for x reasons) but not to more concrete practical criticism, or criticism that talks about specific individuals. 

I share this feeling. I feel like EA has trended in the direction of some other groups I've dealt with where the personalities and interpersonal issues of a small number of people at the top come to be overly dominant. 

I've also had my faith in the movement fractured a bit by seeing how much of how things were run seems to be based on friends of friends networks. I had naively assumed they were doing the kind of due diligence and institutional division of power that other charitable organisations do.

A lot of this isn't a particular specific set of issues, but its a general sense of ones estimates of people being shifted downward

There's a general lack of competence in (and at times active disdain for) skills in PR and communications in EA. Which for a movement that wants to convince people of things and attract membership seems problematic

Yeah, lot of the issues in EA are things I recognise from other fields that disproportionately hire academic high achievers straight out of college, who don't have much real world experience, and who overestimate the value of native intelligence over experience. But conveying the importance of that difference is difficult as, ironically, its something you mostly learn from experience. 

I agree that people shouldn't think that way, but observably they do. And acknowledging human irrationality and working around it was the founding insight or rationalism and EA. I honestly can't really respond to most of your first two paragraphs since it seems to be based on the idea we shouldn't even be considering the question.

I'm not saying truth doesn't matter (if it came across that way I apologise) but that reputational effects are real and also matter. Which is very different from the strawman position of "we shouldn't do anything at all odd or unp... (read more)

It's entirely reasonable to say, as a normative claim, that people should be accurate in reporting.

But when you are thinking about reputational impact of a choice you should be examining not just what the reaction would be to strictly accurate reporting, but how people operating in bad faith could easily represent it, or how good faith people could misinterpret it. Whether they should or not is irrelevant to the predictable consequences.

If you're an organisation that solicits donations part of your basic obligations in your relationship with your donors is to be clear about whatyyou have spent money on in the past, and intend to spend it on in the future, so that people can look at that and make a reasonable judgement about what their donation is likely to be used for

Yeah this is my biggest concern. The whole value proposition of EA was to get away from the normal failure modes of charities. If they are falling into the same traps of using shoddy reasoning to justify self serving behaviour that's a major structural problem, not just a matter of a single decision.

You can get to Luton, Milton Keynes, Stevenage or a number of other small London satellite towns in less than 2 hours from Oxford, and less than 1 from central London. These are all pretty banal collections of concrete buildings, but would allow you to buy a venue for a fraction of the cost. It seems hard to escape the conclusion that this decision was mainly made based on a Manor house in Oxford being more aesthetically appealing than a concrete office building on an industrial estate or small town centre.

At the point you are having to debate the definition of a castle you've lost the optics argument even if you're technically correct.

While those are reasonable comparisons it rather raises the question of why you are buying a venue in one of the most expensive areas of the UK to begin with.

Were there any business cases made comparing this to other cheaper venues in different locations? That's the kind of basic due diligence I'd expect at most organizations I work with in my professional life, and I'm concerned if it's not the case here.

Frankly I would think that there was finally someone with a modicum of sense and understanding of basic PR working in the area. And upgrade my views of the competency of the organisation accordingly.

Also I'd not that "this will save money in the long run" is a fairly big claim that has not been justified. There are literally hundreds of conference venues within a reasonable distance of Oxford, all of which are run by professional event managers who are able to take advantage of specialisation and economies of scale. Making it difficult to believe

Agreed. The whole founding insight of the EA movement was the importance of rigorously measuring value for money. The same logic is used to justify every warm and fuzzy but low value charity. And it's entirely reasonable to be very worried when major figures in the EA movement revert to that kind of reasoning when it's in their self interest.

I feel like a lot of this is downstream from people being reluctant to hire experienced people who aren't already associated with EA. Particularly for things like operations roles experience doing similar roles is going to make far more of a difference to effectiveness than deep belief in EA values. 

When Coke need to hire new people they don't look for people who have a deep love of sugary drinks brands, they find people in similar roles for other things and offer them money. I feel like the reason EA orgs are reluctant to do this is that there's a degree of exceptionalism in EA. 

Agreed. Its entirely possible to take someone's money and spend it for good causes without promoting them and associating ones reputation with them

Forgive me if there's a structural reason why this wouldn't work. But why weren't you saving a larger share of the money coming in, to provide a buffer in case funding dropped off for whatever reason? Seems like part of the underlying issue here was assuming that funding levels would remain constant in the future

A meta level structural problem may be that so much decision making seems to be focused on a relatively small group of people without much oversight. Even with the best people in the world that's going to lead to group think and blind spots. Other charities and non-profits have extensive oversight systems that may be worth imitating.

How concerned were you about crypto generally being unethical?

Also to add to that, whether or not crypto is in itself ethical its known to be a very unstable sector and one with a particularly negative reputation. Was there any discussion of how to compensate for that potential volatility, and of potential reputational risks of being associated? 

Please feel free to "be that guy" as hard as possible when we are talking about massive financial fraud. 

Feels like it was a mistake to tell people to change their strategy if it can be reversed by a single donor having issues. All the emphasis on "we're not funding constrained" may have done long term harm by reducing future donations from a wider pool of people. 

Sorry I should have been clearer, I was meaning more in psychological terms than economic ones. An extra dollar might still do the same amount of good, but the way people intuitively assess impact it will feel very different depending on the funding context people feel it is in. 

So what specific kinds of talented people does EA need more of? Well, the most obvious place to look is the most recent Leader Forum, which gives the following talent gaps (in order):

Is there a place you should go if you meet one of those particular talent gaps? 

The focus on student groups is also inherently redflaggy for some people, as it can be viewed as looking for people who have less scepticism and experience.

There being a lot of funding available in EA also changes the calculus for people deciding if they want to donate their own money. If there are super rich people donating to EA, to the extent that finding ways to spend money is a problem, then the motivation for normal individuals to donate is lower. 

Its not specific communications so much as it is the level of activity around specific causes. How many posts and how much discussion time is spent on AI and other cool intellectual things, vs. more mundane but important things like malaria. Danger of being seen as just a way for people to morally justify doing the kind of things they already want to do. 

The claim that EA is talent constrained not money constrained always confuses me. Since there are no shortage of young talented people interested in EA, but there seem to be very few jobs for them to do in EA. If there is this huge pile of money sitting around why not give it to pepole in exchange for their labor? As every other industry or cause does. 

Value drift seems like a risk. You might start off with a set of altruistic beliefs, but if you spend all your professional and social time around a set of people who don't share those beliefs then you are likely to adopt those beliefs, for the various well studied psychological effects of conformity and what information you will be being exposed to. 

Excellent story. 

Do you have any writing elsewhere?

Same. I'm fairly confident in my writing skills but lack any talent in the other areas and would find doing so embarassing