The model I keep using in my head to think about these things is the Catholic Church. (Maybe not surprising for an organization that encourages tithing.) There is a highly trained priesthood that thinks very hard about how people can live a moral life and then there is the very much larger body of practicing Catholics. A lot of the quality vs quantity arguing that I see is akin to insisting that all Catholics become priests.
This model would argue for less emphasis on building communities of highly-engaged EAs and more on building communities AROUND highly engaged EAs that can guide less-engaged members through the strength of their relationships with these people. I don’t know what the right ratio of “priests” to “practicers” maximizes impact—and really liked Chris Leong’s point about it probably being different for different challenges—but I suspect there’s a pretty steep opportunity cost to not filling those pews.
The model I keep using in my head to think about these things is the Catholic Church. (Maybe not surprising for an organization that encourages tithing.) There is a highly trained priesthood that thinks very hard about how people can live a moral life and then there is the very much larger body of practicing Catholics. A lot of the quality vs quantity arguing that I see is akin to insisting that all Catholics become priests.
This model would argue for less emphasis on building communities of highly-engaged EAs and more on building communities AROUND highly engaged EAs that can guide less-engaged members through the strength of their relationships with these people. I don’t know what the right ratio of “priests” to “practicers” maximizes impact—and really liked Chris Leong’s point about it probably being different for different challenges—but I suspect there’s a pretty steep opportunity cost to not filling those pews.
This is a very cool model and I would absolutely be thrilled to see someone write up a post about it!