I feel like surprisingly often within EA the evaluation of people/orgs is not adversarial. I’ve heard of lots of cases of people being very transparent with hiring managers (as they are very keen for the manager to make a good decision) or with being very transparent funders where the applicant wants to know their project is worthwhile on the view of the fund.
I am not sure how cruxy this is with the claim that it should be air gapped by gapped by default but it seemed like people most of the time wanting the air gap was fairly important on your view to the key argument of the post.
I used to do this, i.e. try to be super open about everything. Not any more. The reason being the information bottleneck. There is no way I can possible transmit all relevant information, and my experience with funding evaluation (and some second hand anecdotes) is that I don’t get a chance to clear up any misconception. So if I have some personal issue that someone might think would interfere with my job, but which I have strong reason to think would not be a problem for complicated reasons, then I would just keep quiet about it to funders and other evaluators.
Sure in a perfect world where there where not information constraints (and also assuming everyone is aligned) then reviling everything is an optimal policy. But this is not the world we live in.
Yeah, I think that EA is far better at encouraging and supporting disclosure to evaluators than, for example, private industry. I also think EAs are more likely to genuinely report their failures (and I take pride in doing this myself, to the extent I’m able). However, I feel that there is still room for more support in the EA community that is decoupled from evaluation, for individuals that might benefit from this.
I feel like surprisingly often within EA the evaluation of people/orgs is not adversarial. I’ve heard of lots of cases of people being very transparent with hiring managers (as they are very keen for the manager to make a good decision) or with being very transparent funders where the applicant wants to know their project is worthwhile on the view of the fund.
I am not sure how cruxy this is with the claim that it should be air gapped by gapped by default but it seemed like people most of the time wanting the air gap was fairly important on your view to the key argument of the post.
I used to do this, i.e. try to be super open about everything. Not any more. The reason being the information bottleneck. There is no way I can possible transmit all relevant information, and my experience with funding evaluation (and some second hand anecdotes) is that I don’t get a chance to clear up any misconception. So if I have some personal issue that someone might think would interfere with my job, but which I have strong reason to think would not be a problem for complicated reasons, then I would just keep quiet about it to funders and other evaluators.
Sure in a perfect world where there where not information constraints (and also assuming everyone is aligned) then reviling everything is an optimal policy. But this is not the world we live in.
Yeah, I think that EA is far better at encouraging and supporting disclosure to evaluators than, for example, private industry. I also think EAs are more likely to genuinely report their failures (and I take pride in doing this myself, to the extent I’m able). However, I feel that there is still room for more support in the EA community that is decoupled from evaluation, for individuals that might benefit from this.