All of Vilhelm Skoglund's Comments + Replies

Thank you for your feedback, I completely agree with your comment that

[...] for the sake of future applicants I think it would be helpful to have more clarity on this reason for rejection.

So I’ll try to clarify what we mean here. 

First, I would like to stress that that the funding circle gathers individual funders with separate wills cooperating under a joint brand to i) more easily process a higher number of applications ii) have a forum where we can discuss the grants to make a more informed decision. So, while the list of the “most common reasons f... (read more)

2
Arepo
2mo
Thanks, that's useful :) I would still worry that in practice most organisations don't know how much they're in that situation, so if you're penalising uncertainty, you're going to lose a lot of expected value - but I guess that's a balance you can figure out (and I hope be somewhat explicit on) over time.

Hi Peter, 

Thanks for the questions. I am afraid I cannot give a particularly good answer, as each member speaks and makes decisions for themselves, and I have not properly investigated the things you are asking about. I hope to build higher clarity on this over time and give a better answer, but I will say a few high-level things that I think are true and might shine some light. 

- Several members prioritize global health and well-being (high confidence) and think that this cause seems more funding-constrained than talent-constrained (low confiden... (read more)

Unfortunately I don't think anything I can say will be meaningful. Jona and I have spent alot of time (above 40 hours in total) trying understand funding flows and thinking about what might be particular needs atm. Also we had great help from Amber. Obviously you could do it with less effort than this. Best guess if I tried to 80/20 doing something similar in the future with some collection of feedback is 10-15 hours from me and 2 hours from feedback givers. But this is very crude.

1
Jona
5mo
FWIW, I also think one key consideration is the likelihood of organizations providing updates and making sure the data means the same thing across organizations (see caveats in the report for more)

Thank you for the encouraging words! Will consider doing this again in the future.

+1 on not being alarmist, overly patronizing, or too certain of ourselves. And to be clear I think this is about more than messaging! Also, agree that we need to be able to collaborate with people who have different prioritise, but think it is important with integrity, prioritising and not giving up too much.

Thank you Peter!

I agree, some kind of regular report would be useful. And definitely think they should include more graphics (erred on the side of getting this out there).

On your meta point, I would be curious to hear if you know of communities or similar that have better information quality, more effectively mediating sought-after behavioral outcomes? My feeling is that this indeed is very important, but rarely is invested in and/or done very well. It would be very interesting with some kind of survey mapping what (easy) system-level improvements/public goods the community would be most excited about (e.g. regular funding updates).  

Thank you! And a few reflections on recognition.

A few days ago, while I sat at the desk in my summer cabin, an unexpected storm swept in. It was a really bad storm, and when it subsided, a big tree had fallen, blocking the road to the little neighborhood where the cabin lies. Some of my neighbors, who are quite senior, needed to get past the tree and could not move it, so I decided to help. I went out with a chainsaw and quad bike, and soon the road was clear.

The entire exercise took me about two hours, and it was an overall pretty pleasurable experience, ... (read more)

2
SebastianSchmidt
7mo
Great reflections.  Agree that recognition and the associated feelings of gratitude should not be the main thing. But still, thanks to all of you who decide to pursue things that seem the best and perhaps even giving up on some version of your passion, the praise, and status you'd get if you acted less altruistic and rationally.

Hey!

Thank you for a good post. I think this is a relevant question, and I agree with Stefan that it would be good with more data on this. Fwiw, in Sweden, my 50% confidence interval of the share of highly-engaged longtermists under 25 doing movement-building is  20-35%.  However, I don't think I am as concerned as you seem to be with that number. A couple of thoughts:

  • I think the answer to how young longtermist who should be doing community building is very dependent on the counterfactual - what they would be doing otherwise. And my experience as
... (read more)
1
Anonymous_EA
2y
Hi, Vilhelm, thanks for these thoughts! Some quick responses to just a few points: 20-35% isn't all that concerning to me. I'd be more concerned if it were in the ballpark of 40% or more. That said, even 20-35% does feel a bit high to me if we're talking about college graduates working full-time on community-building (a higher percentage might make sense if we're counting college students who are just spending a fraction of their time on community-building). Agreed that the counterfactual may be significantly worse for those based in Sweden (or most other countries besides the US and UK) who are unwilling to move to EA hubs. I  should have flagged that I'm writing this as someone based in the US where I see lots of alternatives to community building. With that said,  it's not totally clear to me which direction this points in: maybe a lack of opportunities to do object-level work in Sweden suggests the need for more people to go out and create such opportunities, rather than doing further community-building. Yeah this matches my experience - I see a lot of young EAs doing community building for a year or two post-grad and then moving on to object-level work. This seems great when it's a case of someone thinking community-building is their highest-upside option, testing their fit, and then moving on (presumably because it hasn't gone super well). I worry, though, that in some cases folks do not even view community-building as a career path they're committed to, and instead fall into community-building because it's the "path of least resistance."  To be clear, I'm incredibly grateful to community builders like you, and don't intend to devalue the work you do - I genuinely think community-building is one of the most impactful career paths, and a significant fraction of EAs should pursue it (particularly those who - like you, it sounds like - have great personal fit for the work and see it their highest-upside long-term career path).

Really appreciate the pushback! Would be keen to hear more about your thoughts and I'll set up a meeting.

Thank you!

For context, CEA used to pay $70,000 annually to community builders in San Francisco, with lower salaries in areas with lower costs of living.


I think this was from the last grant period (2021-2022) and that it was slightly less before that.  

Now CEA have updated their payment policy, with salaries baselined to $90,000 in San Francisco, with a cost of living adjustment for other locations, ...

This is starting this grant period (from 2022).

Thank you very much for this input Peter. I would love to chatt and will reach out in a private message.

I think all have the option, but that it might be hard. So providing support to do this might be relevant.

As said I think this is an intersting idea, but I can see practical / legal issues with having a organization in one country having workers in multiple different countries. But regional orgs in places like the US and UK might be good. Also, even though one might not be able to be technically hired, having a joint back office for many things just seems good.

Thank you for the input!

I really like the mentoring idea. My intuition is that many would be up for this, if it was easier. 

Hiring mid-career CBs also seems like a good idea, both because they are likely to stick around longer and have more life experience / career capital and might be able to give more relevant guidance, contacts etc. Though I think it is good to have young people in many contexts.

Support with boring tasks would be beneficial and I do think it could be done "centralized", like Markus Amalthea Magnuson is doing with altruistic.agency. 

Thanks for the comment!

I agree the area is probably the most important factor for potential impact of a group. Thus, it seems especially important that you have capable CBs in those areas. (Though I am not sure it is most important to have really good people in e.g. The Bay as there already is a community in the Bay and it seems easier to do comunity building there. And also less low hanging fruit.)

It seems imoprtant with quick knowledge transfer, but I don't think it replaces the need of having people in the role longer. I don't think it will help us gett... (read more)

Wow - thank you for the many great comments! Will shoot you a PM. Quick thoughts:

I agree - I think we should target passaionate people and I think this should be something that CEA and CB-orgs consider when recruiting people. To some extent though, I think it is important to also proactively make people more passionate about it! 

Career capital problem
If I'd hear that one of my friends is going to be a community builder for 10 years, I would worry what they'd work at after that.

I'd expect that EA is one of the orgs that would pay the most in the world ... (read more)

Yes, it was discontinued shortly after being launched. I am not sure why, but would be very curious to learn why. 

I am also curious why there aren't set up orgs in central locations that can employ people. And I am hoping to get some input on from CEA / similar actors. 

To be fair though, many city/national groups (e.g. EA Sweden that I run) are set up as non-profits and CEA are happy to fund those organizations, that in turn employs group organizers.

This is an intersting idea! I can see som practical / legal issues with having a organization with a few hired people in many different countries. But it should defintely work for the US and UK, where many community builders are based. Also it should work with "regional hubs" in other locations. And even though one might not be able to be technically hired, having a joint back office for many things just seems robustly good. Maybe EA Nordics can lead the way with some experiments here!

4
PeterSlattery
2y
As a really quick thought, I was just chatting with an aspiring community builder and we thought that (executive) director of community (strategy) or something similar sounding could be worth considering. It might be worth looking at the tech community or similar to see their norms.

I also think this is a very good point and that we should consider titles. However, I think one often pretty easily can spin community building as being something more legit / impressive outside EA. I call myself "Executive Director" of EA Sweden, and I do think that sounds pretty good on a CV. Also, with the new funding situation in EA and the many talented people in the movement I actually think strating / running an EA group can be a good opportonity to build an impressive organization.

1
lennart
2y
Indeed. Given that the payment is a grant and you're working for [name of your local org], what's stopping you from using an appropriate title? Be it CEO, director, strategy, program director, etc. Most nationwide EA groups do so and also a handful of local groups.

Thank you for the comment and encouragement! 

I agree that community building has been promoted as important, but then implicitly undervalued by the actual prestige, funding and support offered to existing or aspiring community builders. And I think this is detrimental to EA. However, I want to stress that I am very encouraged about the efforts CEA are putting into making community building more attractive. I also think it is encouraging to see 80k giving more and better coverage on community building now and Openphil highlighting it in their new grantmaking. 

Really appreciate your thoughts, and would love to discuss this further in private - I'll send a message.

Thank you for the comment!

The survey was only sent out to community builders in city and national groups. Also the exit interviews where with people from city and national groups, but three of them had been university organizers. And you are right, the name 'community building grants' doesn't make it obvious that it excludes uni groups. I should make this clearer in the post - will edit! 

However, previous work included input from uni group leaders and before posting this post I shared it with uni group leaders, to see if they had differing views. I co... (read more)

Thank you for the input!

I agree mentorship seems really important and I know it has benefited me alot. The idea of creating a culture / expectation that senior CB's have formal mentorships  with junior CB's sounds good, largely becuse I think characteristics that make for a good CB make for a good mentor. However, I think it is really important that the senior CB mentors feel excited about it, as that seems necessesary for a fruitful mentorship. Also, I think it would benefit from some kind of coordination / scaffolding / guidance. It would also be re... (read more)

EA Sweden nominates Lowe Lundin - looks like your everyday swede, but don't let the blonde locs and innocent blue eyes fool you. This guy is wandering encyclopedia who eats enough for three people and has the hart of four people.

Thank you for the doc! I really like trying to come up with a relevnt framework. I'll check it out more later!

I agree that this is to some extent premature. I guess what made us jump the gun was that the person who would interested in funding something is explicitly aimed at high budget vidoe content. But from a more general EA standpoint it seems very important to compare different mediums. 

To give some push-/feedback I also think it would be intersting to think about how different mediums might  interact and what the best "media portfolio" woul... (read more)

I agree with most things you say. A few thoughts.

How well do you think learning/success from a youtube series would translate into making something bigger? It seems to me they are kind of different beasts, though things such as what topics seems to generate more interest might be relevant. Also, I feel uneasy about outsourcing to much. I see the upsides in having someone with an estalished channel. And obviously we would want to have someone excellent doing it. But it seems we should be able to find a capable EA to do it and I would feel much more comforta... (read more)

Hej! 

Thanks for great pushback.

First, shortly addressing the idea that there are documentaries on many EA related topics.

I agree and I believe you very likely have a better grasp of this than me. But, as you yourself suggest, I think there are gaps. E.g. I have not seen anything on wildlife animal welfare, relevant on AI x-risks, Longtermism, Civilization resilience, S-risks, Whole brain emulation etc. I am not sure these would be the best things to do a documentary on (which is part of the reason for writing this) but it at least seems worth consider... (read more)