I don’t think it’s mean, and I don’t think you should delete it (and clearly many others think it’s a good comment). However, I strongly disagree with the claim that EA leadership isn’t really a thing. I’ll also aim to explain why I think why asking questions directed at “EA leadership” is reasonable to me, even if they may not be to you.
But I’m not sure “EA Leadership” is really a thing
The coordination forum literally used to be called the “leaders forum”. The description of the first coordination forum was literally “leaders and experienced staff from established EA organizations”. The Centre for Effective Altruism organizes events called “Ëffective Altruism Global” and has the ability to prevent or very strongly recommend that organizers don’t allow people into community events.
When people do look for an identifiable figure to blame, the only person who looks vaguely like a leader is Will, so they pick on him. But Will is not the CEO of EA! He’s a philosopher who writes books about EA and has received a bunch of funding to do PR stuff.
If you have spent millions of dollars on a PR campaign for your book and are seen as the public face of EA, people who self-identify as EA are going to take some interest in what you say when you’re seen to be representing EA, and whether or not your decisions affect them. If Will went out and said “Actually EAs believe that abortion should be outlawed with no exceptions for rape or to save the life of the mother”, and I don’t personally endorse this claim but have been talking about how I am an EA at work, the damage is done regardless of whether he’s “the CEO of EA” or just a philosopher. If he and his team has chosen to spread longtermism by writing a book and marketing it, then it comes with the responsibility of being in the public eye, and answering for things he says or actions he takes that people will interpret as “this is what EA is about”/”this is what longtermism is about”.
But I think the reality is: there are no adults in the room, who are managing everything behind the scenes, and who you can be angry at for failing you.
There are a lot of people doing various specific ways, and working with each other in various more-or-less coordinated ways. “EA” does not do things, “EA” did not “endorse” SBF. Some specific individuals may have done this, but the shadowy council of EA Leadership did not meet at midnight to declare SBF the Chosen Saviour.
For any decision that specific individuals or organizations do, I personally do not have the power or influence to meaningfully push back against them. But some people in the EA community have more power and influence than me and can do so. So while there might not be a shadowy council of EA leadership, there are people who make decisions that affect and shape the EA movement in much greater ways than I can. And while there might not be a centralized loci of power, power is clearly not distributed evenly, and decisions are made in ways that affect me when I have close to no ability to influence it.
As long as people who aren’t part of the decisions being made are still identifying as EAs and helping promote it, they are implicitly trusting that people who are in positions to affect and shape the EA movement more than them are doing so in well considered ways, in ways that they are comfortable with or happy to endorse.
If people at my local meetup identify as EAs and talk positively about it and encourage new members to get more involved, and those with a lot more influence in shaping the EA movement (those who fund our groups, those who write the books and blog posts we discuss, those who take interviews on national TV or get featured in TIME magazine) are taking it in a direction my group don’t agree with or don’t understand, or something happens that makes the group question the ability of “EA leaders”, then it seems reasonable to ask questions, because they are now uncertain whether EA is a movement they still want to be part of, or want to endorse, or want to encourage others to join. In this case, transparency might leada to more accountability, or it might lead to more decentralized decision making. It’s a tradeoff against other considerations, and they obviously aren’t obliged to change anything, but it seems unreasonable to me that you’re taking issue with people even asking these questions?
If they weren’t part of decisions that contributed to these events, and they don’t know how these decisions are made, and they’re ridiculed for even asking about it, then you’re basically asking people who have no meaningful way to influence the decisons or get any insight into the thought process behind it to just “have faith” in the decisions that are being made. And when people change their jobs and careers and life plans around EA and where the movement is being taken, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask questions that help them gain clarity around whether the movement does in fact align with where they want their own life to go.
Also, suggesting that “there are no adults in the room” I think can come across pretty demeaning to all the people who have spent years of their life working on shaping the EA movement.
And if it’s true that “there are no adults in the room” in context of “why didn’t the adults prevent this bad thing from happening?” (i.e., if there’s no one in the EA movement who has a job that might reasonably reduce the chance of things like this or other risks to the EA movement from happening), then it would be a pretty important update for me, and probably for many others. But I doubt this is actually the case.
Thanks for this excellent comment. I’m not going to respond more since I’m not sure what I think any more, but I just wanted to clarify one thing.
Also, suggesting that “there are no adults in the room” I think can come across pretty demeaning to all the people who have spent years of their life working on shaping the EA movement.
I’m sorry about that! That wasn’t my intention: I was trying to present the idea of the “adults” as hypothetical serious beings in comparison to whom we are like children. I don’t mean to imply that the people doing work in EA are not serious or competent, but I do think it’s wrong and unfair to think that they are at some ideal level of seriousness or competency (which few if any people can live up to, and shouldn’t be expected to without consent and serious vetting).
I don’t think it’s mean, and I don’t think you should delete it (and clearly many others think it’s a good comment). However, I strongly disagree with the claim that EA leadership isn’t really a thing. I’ll also aim to explain why I think why asking questions directed at “EA leadership” is reasonable to me, even if they may not be to you.
The coordination forum literally used to be called the “leaders forum”. The description of the first coordination forum was literally “leaders and experienced staff from established EA organizations”. The Centre for Effective Altruism organizes events called “Ëffective Altruism Global” and has the ability to prevent or very strongly recommend that organizers don’t allow people into community events.
If you have spent millions of dollars on a PR campaign for your book and are seen as the public face of EA, people who self-identify as EA are going to take some interest in what you say when you’re seen to be representing EA, and whether or not your decisions affect them. If Will went out and said “Actually EAs believe that abortion should be outlawed with no exceptions for rape or to save the life of the mother”, and I don’t personally endorse this claim but have been talking about how I am an EA at work, the damage is done regardless of whether he’s “the CEO of EA” or just a philosopher. If he and his team has chosen to spread longtermism by writing a book and marketing it, then it comes with the responsibility of being in the public eye, and answering for things he says or actions he takes that people will interpret as “this is what EA is about”/”this is what longtermism is about”.
For any decision that specific individuals or organizations do, I personally do not have the power or influence to meaningfully push back against them. But some people in the EA community have more power and influence than me and can do so. So while there might not be a shadowy council of EA leadership, there are people who make decisions that affect and shape the EA movement in much greater ways than I can. And while there might not be a centralized loci of power, power is clearly not distributed evenly, and decisions are made in ways that affect me when I have close to no ability to influence it.
As long as people who aren’t part of the decisions being made are still identifying as EAs and helping promote it, they are implicitly trusting that people who are in positions to affect and shape the EA movement more than them are doing so in well considered ways, in ways that they are comfortable with or happy to endorse.
If people at my local meetup identify as EAs and talk positively about it and encourage new members to get more involved, and those with a lot more influence in shaping the EA movement (those who fund our groups, those who write the books and blog posts we discuss, those who take interviews on national TV or get featured in TIME magazine) are taking it in a direction my group don’t agree with or don’t understand, or something happens that makes the group question the ability of “EA leaders”, then it seems reasonable to ask questions, because they are now uncertain whether EA is a movement they still want to be part of, or want to endorse, or want to encourage others to join. In this case, transparency might leada to more accountability, or it might lead to more decentralized decision making. It’s a tradeoff against other considerations, and they obviously aren’t obliged to change anything, but it seems unreasonable to me that you’re taking issue with people even asking these questions?
If they weren’t part of decisions that contributed to these events, and they don’t know how these decisions are made, and they’re ridiculed for even asking about it, then you’re basically asking people who have no meaningful way to influence the decisons or get any insight into the thought process behind it to just “have faith” in the decisions that are being made. And when people change their jobs and careers and life plans around EA and where the movement is being taken, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask questions that help them gain clarity around whether the movement does in fact align with where they want their own life to go.
Also, suggesting that “there are no adults in the room” I think can come across pretty demeaning to all the people who have spent years of their life working on shaping the EA movement.
And if it’s true that “there are no adults in the room” in context of “why didn’t the adults prevent this bad thing from happening?” (i.e., if there’s no one in the EA movement who has a job that might reasonably reduce the chance of things like this or other risks to the EA movement from happening), then it would be a pretty important update for me, and probably for many others. But I doubt this is actually the case.
Thanks for this excellent comment. I’m not going to respond more since I’m not sure what I think any more, but I just wanted to clarify one thing.
I’m sorry about that! That wasn’t my intention: I was trying to present the idea of the “adults” as hypothetical serious beings in comparison to whom we are like children. I don’t mean to imply that the people doing work in EA are not serious or competent, but I do think it’s wrong and unfair to think that they are at some ideal level of seriousness or competency (which few if any people can live up to, and shouldn’t be expected to without consent and serious vetting).
No need to apologize! Thought I’d share this in case it’s a meaningful update
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/oosCitFzBup2P3etg/insider-ea-content-in-gideon-lewis-kraus-s-recent-new-yorker