An anonymous user submitted the following question to me via my Admonymous:
Hey Bella,
The role sparked my interest when I saw it on LinkedIn a week ago, but candidly I am a bit hesitant about submitting an application.
There seems to be a heavy emphasis on participation and previous involvement in effective altruism. I am only tepidly familiar with the concept through references in popular media, and perhaps appropriately, was introduced several years ago through the 80,000 Hours book giveaway. I aspire to do good, and leave a net positive impact on the world – but I haven’t necessarily lived the creed. I have in fact worked in careers and industries topping the list of “10 most harmful careers” – marketing in harmful industries like gambling, AI etc., prioritising career growth and often, renumeration, over other aspects more personally relevant to me.
Looking at the team makeup of 80,000 hours on LinkedIn, it seems like It seems like interest and previous engagement or studies in ethics, moral philosophy, volunteerism, or in related fields (charity, giving etc.) are weighed considerably (and potentially more important than classical marketing experience – which you alluded to in the role description). I do think the role itself is a neat challenge and great opportunity, but I fear the stigma in having been in a harmful career makes it more difficult to transition to a EA career, and (particularly for this role), doesn’t make me a viable candidate.
I understand roles at this organisation are at the helm of a very unique discipline and field where passion and engagement are particularly important. You can be earnest and candid in your response. I think that is fair.
I’ll leave my response in a reply to this comment.
Thanks for your question, and for reaching out to me even though you felt hesitant!
You’re right that the job description mentions interest in effective altruism and longtermism, and that our staff often have backgrounds in EA or related areas.
However, I think that if 80k only ever hired people who had previously had roles which were legibly EA — or excluded people who’d ever had a harmful career — we’d likely turn people away who could have been excellent in the role, and we’d be making a mistake. So, I don’t think you should think you’re unqualified if you have either of those traits!
I’d also hope that you wouldn’t encounter any stigma at 80,000 Hours — our staff are, in my experience, empathetic and lovely people — but it’s hard to be very confident without knowing the specific roles in question, or asking my colleagues directly.
That said:
I do think that knowledge of (and even experience in) “EA meta” or “community-building” is a useful trait, for the roles I’m hiring for. That’s because 80k is an EA meta organisation — we’re engaged in the project of trying to get people to work on the world’s most pressing problems — so that knowledge would be directly relevant.
I also think that the strongest candidates for these roles will be really excited about 80,000 Hours’ mission, and using their talent and effort to help us do more of what we do :) At bare minimum, they need to be willing to spend the coming months/years working towards our mission, and ideally, they should think that sounds like among their top options for ways to spend their time at work. So, if you’re on the fence about whether you support EA-style approaches to doing good (I’m a bit unsure from what you wrote?) then you might want to spend some time working out what you think before applying to roles like these. If you’re feeling confident, but just haven’t acted on it much yet — there’s no time like the present! :)
Hope that helps — feel free to reply here with an anonymous Forum account if you’d like, or to reply on my Admonymous again.
An anonymous user submitted the following question to me via my Admonymous:
I’ll leave my response in a reply to this comment.
Thanks for your question, and for reaching out to me even though you felt hesitant!
You’re right that the job description mentions interest in effective altruism and longtermism, and that our staff often have backgrounds in EA or related areas.
However, I think that if 80k only ever hired people who had previously had roles which were legibly EA — or excluded people who’d ever had a harmful career — we’d likely turn people away who could have been excellent in the role, and we’d be making a mistake. So, I don’t think you should think you’re unqualified if you have either of those traits!
I’d also hope that you wouldn’t encounter any stigma at 80,000 Hours — our staff are, in my experience, empathetic and lovely people — but it’s hard to be very confident without knowing the specific roles in question, or asking my colleagues directly.
That said:
I do think that knowledge of (and even experience in) “EA meta” or “community-building” is a useful trait, for the roles I’m hiring for. That’s because 80k is an EA meta organisation — we’re engaged in the project of trying to get people to work on the world’s most pressing problems — so that knowledge would be directly relevant.
I also think that the strongest candidates for these roles will be really excited about 80,000 Hours’ mission, and using their talent and effort to help us do more of what we do :) At bare minimum, they need to be willing to spend the coming months/years working towards our mission, and ideally, they should think that sounds like among their top options for ways to spend their time at work. So, if you’re on the fence about whether you support EA-style approaches to doing good (I’m a bit unsure from what you wrote?) then you might want to spend some time working out what you think before applying to roles like these. If you’re feeling confident, but just haven’t acted on it much yet — there’s no time like the present! :)
Hope that helps — feel free to reply here with an anonymous Forum account if you’d like, or to reply on my Admonymous again.