Are there any concerns that targeting a small group of people, and actively employing those people under CEA, you are essentially locking CEA into path whereby it is unrepresentative of a wider global movement?
I am already concerned about how representative CEA is of a wider movement, in particular I have concerns that much of CEA’s hiring consists of using direct and personal networks within universities close to your headquarters. At the same time, I believe EA could rapidly grow in the world and be an effective force for change. If EA sees significant growth, I could forsee that the “baking in” of current founder effects to CEA (i.e. small group of “elite”) could be pretty disastrously sub-optimal (in the context of a larger global movement).
This sounds good because no one likes nepotism or groupthink.
But at the object level, if you are saying that good candidates are turned away because they don’t literally have degrees from or close connections to Oxford or Cambridge, that doesn’t literally seem to be true, yet you’ve been pretty specific about this.
I don’t think this is what you intend. I think I can guess what you’re saying. I think the below is a response to this:
I don’t know of any founders or executives that don’t take advantage of networks when hiring people, and this is especially so for leadership roles.
From the outside view, candidates from HYPS schools or who have markers for high status have large advantages in being hired in every industry and job.
From the inside view, while these people often have high ability, they also share common culture and communication norms and other traits that enable trust. I think these are just as important as “ability” in leadership or foundational roles.
I can think of many situations where founders or movements would prefer having aligned, internally homogenous cultures among leadership. I guess that virtually all successful movements or organizations have this feature.
But the above isn’t the heart of the matter. Typically, people who argue along these lines believe there is structural, systematic selection or steering of the movement away from some broader vision into narrow focuses. Usually, insularity (HYPS or elite focus is one color of this) plays a role, and there are variations of motivated reasoning, rent-seeking, etc involved too in these criticisms.
I am skeptical of these criticisms, because when examined, they lack models of the theories of change of EA, resources EA is trying to obtain, and the considerations that go into this.
This sounds good because no one likes nepotism or groupthink.
But at the object level, if you are saying that good candidates are turned away because they don’t literally have degrees from or close connections to Oxford or Cambridge, that doesn’t literally seem to be true, yet you’ve been pretty specific about this.
I don’t think this is what you intend. I think I can guess what you’re saying. I think the below is a response to this:
I don’t know of any founders or executives that don’t take advantage of networks when hiring people, and this is especially so for leadership roles.
From the outside view, candidates from HYPS schools or who have markers for high status have large advantages in being hired in every industry and job.
From the inside view, while these people often have high ability, they also share common culture and communication norms and other traits that enable trust. I think these are just as important as “ability” in leadership or foundational roles.
I can think of many situations where founders or movements would prefer having aligned, internally homogenous cultures among leadership. I guess that virtually all successful movements or organizations have this feature.
But the above isn’t the heart of the matter. Typically, people who argue along these lines believe there is structural, systematic selection or steering of the movement away from some broader vision into narrow focuses. Usually, insularity (HYPS or elite focus is one color of this) plays a role, and there are variations of motivated reasoning, rent-seeking, etc involved too in these criticisms.
I am skeptical of these criticisms, because when examined, they lack models of the theories of change of EA, resources EA is trying to obtain, and the considerations that go into this.