I want to allow my problem solver side to say a few things, but, eh, if that’s not what you want, totally skip my comment
So:
[reminder this is ignorable]
Maybe community building isn’t a good fit for you now, in a time where it involves all these things you don’t like?
Or maybe you could do community building in some niche (like.. run the EA Product Managers group or something, if they don’t have someone doing that) where you’re not exposed to the parts you don’t like?
My cold take is that too many EAs are in roles they find tiring/stressful/something, and that these EAs can find another role that is (in my interpretation of 80k’s words) a better fit for them.
I personally see software developers who want to be data scientists, and data scientists who want to be software developers, and each think they’ve got to do the not-fun-thing. Maybe you’re somehow in this situation? I know at least one person who is fascinated by preventing and managing PR problems. I personally don’t get it, but these people do exist. I know another person mission driven (in a good way) about reducing the.. toxicity. Maybe there’s something you’re excited about that you don’t understand why not everybody else wants to do?
A reminder that I know nothing about you, this is a long shot guess + pattern matching. Ignoring my comment is totally a legit move. (or maybe someone else who resonates with your post would resonate with this comment, I hope)
I think you’re actually right here. A couple of points stand out to me:
Megan says she still wants to build a movement that ‘wants the world to be a better, kinder, softer place’
EA, like it or not, probably isn’t that movement- EA is a movement that mashes together lots of different counterintuitive, often edgy ideas, makes trade-offs that clash with more mainstream ethical views, relies on often obscure philosophies and the work of a few very clever, fairly weird people… and is funded to a pretty major degree by those billionaires she’s so tired of.
I suspect that she really wants the EA movement to be something it’s not, and finds the cognitive dissonance of trying to build this movement particularly stressful. As you mention, some people just enjoy PR and some people might just be happy defending a movement that they have major disagreements with, because the alternative is worse (political parties seem the obvious example) but Megan doesn’t seem to be in either category.
Personally, I feel more comfortable with the way EA is, and I acknowledge the trade-offs- when I do community building (less frequently), I don’t feel tired by any of the issues mentioned. I tend to take the fairly consistent line that, if a certain scandal or drama within EA makes the movement something that you really don’t want to identify with, you’re probably not right for EA (but I’m happy talking about recommended charities etc.). I don’t feel like I’ve ever been ‘in a position where I have to apologize for sexism, racism, and other toxic ideologies within this movement’.
I think you’ve entirely misidentified the point. OP is not tired of community-building, but of the way that EA elevates certain people and the problems left in its wake. “Cult of personality” as it’s commonly known. EA might have less problems with optics if it wasn’t for people elevating people like Bostrom and SBF to these ridiculous heights. Community-building is probably fine, damage control is what sucks.
Phrases like “EA elevates people” are becoming common, but it is very unclear what it means. Nick Bostrom created groundbreaking philosophical ideas. Will MacAskill has written extremely popular books and built communities and movements. Sam Bankman Fried became the richest man under 30 in a matter of months. All of these people have influenced and inspired many EAs because of their actions.
Under any reasonable sense of the word, people are elevating themselves. I think EA is incredibly free from ‘cult of personality’ problems—in fact it’s amazing how quickly people will turn against popular EAs. But in any group, some people are going to get status for doing their work well.
Does Bostrom actually have a cult of personality/is elevated to ridiculous heights?
He doesn’t have a Twitter account (or any other social media presence as far as I’m aware), doesn’t participate on EA (or EA adjacent) forums, doesn’t blog frequently and doesn’t do media tours to promote himself.
Is this necessarily an EA optics problem?
The Times article on the controversy mentions “Oxford don”, in the headline, and there was no mention of “effective altruism” in the body of the article.
I expect the mainstream zeitgeist on this article to be more about Bostrom’s Oxford connection than his effective altruism connection.
My understanding is that it’s not that she never wants to do damage control and crisis management—but that she is tired of constantly having to do it and the fact that it crowds out the other aspects of EA and Community-Building
Sorry you’re in this situation! :(
I want to allow my problem solver side to say a few things, but, eh, if that’s not what you want, totally skip my comment
So:
[reminder this is ignorable]
Maybe community building isn’t a good fit for you now, in a time where it involves all these things you don’t like?
Or maybe you could do community building in some niche (like.. run the EA Product Managers group or something, if they don’t have someone doing that) where you’re not exposed to the parts you don’t like?
My cold take is that too many EAs are in roles they find tiring/stressful/something, and that these EAs can find another role that is (in my interpretation of 80k’s words) a better fit for them.
I personally see software developers who want to be data scientists, and data scientists who want to be software developers, and each think they’ve got to do the not-fun-thing. Maybe you’re somehow in this situation? I know at least one person who is fascinated by preventing and managing PR problems. I personally don’t get it, but these people do exist. I know another person mission driven (in a good way) about reducing the.. toxicity. Maybe there’s something you’re excited about that you don’t understand why not everybody else wants to do?
A reminder that I know nothing about you, this is a long shot guess + pattern matching. Ignoring my comment is totally a legit move. (or maybe someone else who resonates with your post would resonate with this comment, I hope)
<3
I think you’re actually right here. A couple of points stand out to me:
Megan says she still wants to build a movement that ‘wants the world to be a better, kinder, softer place’
EA, like it or not, probably isn’t that movement- EA is a movement that mashes together lots of different counterintuitive, often edgy ideas, makes trade-offs that clash with more mainstream ethical views, relies on often obscure philosophies and the work of a few very clever, fairly weird people… and is funded to a pretty major degree by those billionaires she’s so tired of.
I suspect that she really wants the EA movement to be something it’s not, and finds the cognitive dissonance of trying to build this movement particularly stressful. As you mention, some people just enjoy PR and some people might just be happy defending a movement that they have major disagreements with, because the alternative is worse (political parties seem the obvious example) but Megan doesn’t seem to be in either category.
Personally, I feel more comfortable with the way EA is, and I acknowledge the trade-offs- when I do community building (less frequently), I don’t feel tired by any of the issues mentioned. I tend to take the fairly consistent line that, if a certain scandal or drama within EA makes the movement something that you really don’t want to identify with, you’re probably not right for EA (but I’m happy talking about recommended charities etc.). I don’t feel like I’ve ever been ‘in a position where I have to apologize for sexism, racism, and other toxic ideologies within this movement’.
I think you’ve entirely misidentified the point. OP is not tired of community-building, but of the way that EA elevates certain people and the problems left in its wake. “Cult of personality” as it’s commonly known. EA might have less problems with optics if it wasn’t for people elevating people like Bostrom and SBF to these ridiculous heights. Community-building is probably fine, damage control is what sucks.
Phrases like “EA elevates people” are becoming common, but it is very unclear what it means. Nick Bostrom created groundbreaking philosophical ideas. Will MacAskill has written extremely popular books and built communities and movements. Sam Bankman Fried became the richest man under 30 in a matter of months. All of these people have influenced and inspired many EAs because of their actions.
Under any reasonable sense of the word, people are elevating themselves. I think EA is incredibly free from ‘cult of personality’ problems—in fact it’s amazing how quickly people will turn against popular EAs. But in any group, some people are going to get status for doing their work well.
Does Bostrom actually have a cult of personality/is elevated to ridiculous heights?
He doesn’t have a Twitter account (or any other social media presence as far as I’m aware), doesn’t participate on EA (or EA adjacent) forums, doesn’t blog frequently and doesn’t do media tours to promote himself.
Is this necessarily an EA optics problem?
The Times article on the controversy mentions “Oxford don”, in the headline, and there was no mention of “effective altruism” in the body of the article.
I expect the mainstream zeitgeist on this article to be more about Bostrom’s Oxford connection than his effective altruism connection.
I’m unconvinced that:
EA has a Bostrom specific optics problem
Bostrom has a cult of personality within EA
Thanks for explaining, retracted
Retracted even the heart
Surely the heart is still endorsed by the author!
It became a broken heart after retraction! 💔
Surely, damage control and crisis management is part of community building work?
My understanding is that it’s not that she never wants to do damage control and crisis management—but that she is tired of constantly having to do it and the fact that it crowds out the other aspects of EA and Community-Building