Can you explain how the EA community is intensely hierarchical? From what Iāve seen, EA tends to have a relatively flat orginazational structure and very high tolerance for contradicting or questioning authority figures, but maybe others have had different experiences with this than I have.
I think thats the public image but isnāt how things actually work internally. Id really recommend reading this comment by Buck about how āYouāve also made the (IMO broadly correct) point that a lot of EA organizations are led and influenced by a pretty tightly knit group of people who consider themselves alliesā. Notably the post is pretty explicit that any proposed changes should be geared toward getting this small group onboard.
It is less public (at this point) but some of the core EAs have definitely been capricious in terms of who they want to receive any kind of support or endorsement. And they feel quite willing to do this without any community buy in.
Okay so, if youāll bear with me a moment, your comment has actually convinced me that EA is in fact not hierarchical, but I do agree with your intended point.
Buckās comment, and the parent post by ConcernedEAs, point out that thereās a small, tightly-knit group thatās involved in many of the core EA organizations, who all know each other and collectively influence a lot of funding outcomes.
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. Thereās no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as Iāve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding. EA is far less hierarchical than anything similar you could compare it to, such as 501(c)(3)s, academia, government, or for-profit corporations. Itās more like a loose collection of 100 startups.
But the point I think you are making when you (and other comments Iāve seen) call it hierarchical is that this small group of influential people have a lot of power, and if most of your professional life is within EA, your outcomes are dependent on them and their decisions.
I think there is an aspect in which EA does really well with this: if you have a good (or bad) idea for a charitable project, itāll get funded (or not) based on its merits (or flaws), and EA wonāt disqualify you from opportunities for being too young or too old or female or a foreigner.
But there is this problem youāre pointing out, where maybe you have to join Buck and Claireās polycule to get in touch with the grantmakers, or youāre expected to stay in Owenās guest room while youāre in town for the nonprofit interview he referred you to. This tight-knit group of people has a lot of influence, and as weāre seeing in the situation described in this post, their power affects all the people they interact with even if they donāt realize it.
Edit: for anyone who disagrees with this comment, can you explain what that I said was wrong?
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. Thereās no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as Iāve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding
Seems like youāre confusing hierarchy with āformal corporate hierarchy.ā There is what I would call an informal hierarchy in EA. Most of your post seems to agree with that so frankly Iām a bit confused as to your point?
One of the reasons this type of setup is so problematic is that informal hierarchies pretend to be open while secretly keeping power tight. In that way it can be far worse than other organizations you list.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word. There are a small group of people who are tightly knit and control many of the large scale decisions in EA.
To me, that is clearly a form of hierarchy. Where does that word break down for you?
Can you explain how the EA community is intensely hierarchical? From what Iāve seen, EA tends to have a relatively flat orginazational structure and very high tolerance for contradicting or questioning authority figures, but maybe others have had different experiences with this than I have.
I think thats the public image but isnāt how things actually work internally. Id really recommend reading this comment by Buck about how āYouāve also made the (IMO broadly correct) point that a lot of EA organizations are led and influenced by a pretty tightly knit group of people who consider themselves alliesā. Notably the post is pretty explicit that any proposed changes should be geared toward getting this small group onboard.
It is less public (at this point) but some of the core EAs have definitely been capricious in terms of who they want to receive any kind of support or endorsement. And they feel quite willing to do this without any community buy in.
Okay so, if youāll bear with me a moment, your comment has actually convinced me that EA is in fact not hierarchical, but I do agree with your intended point.
Buckās comment, and the parent post by ConcernedEAs, point out that thereās a small, tightly-knit group thatās involved in many of the core EA organizations, who all know each other and collectively influence a lot of funding outcomes.
This is not the same thing as a hierarchy. Thereās no middle management, no corporate ladder you have to climb, and (as far as Iāve seen) no office politics you have to wade through before you can reach the top of an organization or receive your grant funding. EA is far less hierarchical than anything similar you could compare it to, such as 501(c)(3)s, academia, government, or for-profit corporations. Itās more like a loose collection of 100 startups.
But the point I think you are making when you (and other comments Iāve seen) call it hierarchical is that this small group of influential people have a lot of power, and if most of your professional life is within EA, your outcomes are dependent on them and their decisions.
I think there is an aspect in which EA does really well with this: if you have a good (or bad) idea for a charitable project, itāll get funded (or not) based on its merits (or flaws), and EA wonāt disqualify you from opportunities for being too young or too old or female or a foreigner.
But there is this problem youāre pointing out, where maybe you have to join Buck and Claireās polycule to get in touch with the grantmakers, or youāre expected to stay in Owenās guest room while youāre in town for the nonprofit interview he referred you to. This tight-knit group of people has a lot of influence, and as weāre seeing in the situation described in this post, their power affects all the people they interact with even if they donāt realize it.
Edit: for anyone who disagrees with this comment, can you explain what that I said was wrong?
Seems like youāre confusing hierarchy with āformal corporate hierarchy.ā There is what I would call an informal hierarchy in EA. Most of your post seems to agree with that so frankly Iām a bit confused as to your point?
One of the reasons this type of setup is so problematic is that informal hierarchies pretend to be open while secretly keeping power tight. In that way it can be far worse than other organizations you list.
No, Iām aware there are other kinds, and EA has less of those as well.
Okay, if it wasnāt clear enough: a few people in the middle of a social movement knowing each other doesnāt make it a hierarchy.
Perhaps we just have different definitions of the word. There are a small group of people who are tightly knit and control many of the large scale decisions in EA.
To me, that is clearly a form of hierarchy. Where does that word break down for you?