Yeah, it would probably be good if people redirected this energy to climbing ladders in the government/civil service/military or important powerful corporate institutions. But I guess these ladders underpay you in terms of social credit/inner ringing within EA. Should we praise people aiming for 15y-to-high-impact careers more?
Basic profile: advancing into some high-leverage role in government (or some other institution such as the World Bank), from which you can help the larger institution make decisions that are good for the long-run future of the world.
Essentially any career that ends up in an influential position in some government (including executive, judicial, and legislative positions) could qualify here (though of course some are more likely to be relevant than others).
Examples:
Richard Danzig (former Secretary of the Navy, author of Technology Roulette); multiple people who are pursuing degrees in security studies at Georgetown and aiming for (or already heading into) government roles.
...
On track?
As a first pass, the answer to “How on track are you?” seems reasonably approximated by “How quickly and impressively is your career advancing, by the standards of the institution?” People with more experience (and advancement) at the institution will often be able to help you get a clear idea of how this is going (and I generally think it’s important to have good enough relationships with some such people to get honest input from them—this is an additional indicator for whether you’re “on track”).
Yeah, it would probably be good if people redirected this energy to climbing ladders in the government/civil service/military or important powerful corporate institutions. But I guess these ladders underpay you in terms of social credit/inner ringing within EA. Should we praise people aiming for 15y-to-high-impact careers more?
To support your point, Holden signal-boosted this in his aptitudes over paths post:
We should praise the class of worker in general but leave the individuals alone.