Thanks for this. Very useful. If you ever plan a future iteration, I think that making an abbreviation could be really helpful.
For instance, I like the way we can say OCEAN for the big five personality traits or ENTP for the Myers Briggs. I think that this could be good to have something similar for differentiating people within EA circles.
As a start, I think you (maybe) have these variables: temporal focus, abstraction, reflectiveness, impatience, perfectionism, and conformism, so PARTIC? Super catchy :)
Throw in laziness (how much you want to work) and egoism (how much you need to gain/āget credit from do-gooding) and you get PARTICLE.
Iām keen for the language around this to convey the correct vibe about the epistemic status of the framework: currently I think this is āhere are some dimensions that I and some other people feel like are helpful for our thinkingā. But not āwe have well-validated ways of measuring any of these thingsā nor āthis is definitely the most helpful carving up in the vicinityā nor āthis was demonstrated to be helpful for building a theory of change for intervention X which did verifiably useful thingsā. I think the animal names/āpictures are kind of playful and help to convey that this isnāt yet attempting to be in epistemically-solid land?
I guess Iām interested in the situations where you think an abbreviation would be helpful. Do you want someone to make an EA personality test based on this?
Thanks for the response Owen. I understand about the epistemic status.
I guess Iām interested in the situations where you think an abbreviation would be helpful.
I imagine that I meet some new EA and I am trying to get to know them. After the standard where did you hear about EA, what cause areas are you most interested in, I might want to ask about the sort engagement they have with EA and doing good. At this point it would be useful to be able to reference the dimensions you have outlined and similar. I.e., āSo what sort of EA are you? How do you rate yourself on [abbreviation]?ā
As this example might suggest, I think that an abbreviation could make such conversations more likely to occur by making the dimensions you have outlined easier to recall and communicate and increasing the probability that they disseminate widely.
Do you want someone to make an EA personality test based on this?
I donāt think that it is a high priority thing to do but I think that an EA/ādo-gooder personality test could be quite useful in the future for understanding differences between do-gooders (within and outside EA), connecting people to the right projects/ācauses, and building the right sorts of teams (i.e., with a balance of across key dimensions).
I know for example that Spencer Greenberg uses personality tests to help people determine fit for entrepreneurship and we could have something similar.
Thanks for this. Very useful. If you ever plan a future iteration, I think that making an abbreviation could be really helpful.
For instance, I like the way we can say OCEAN for the big five personality traits or ENTP for the Myers Briggs. I think that this could be good to have something similar for differentiating people within EA circles.
As a start, I think you (maybe) have these variables: temporal focus, abstraction, reflectiveness, impatience, perfectionism, and conformism, so PARTIC? Super catchy :)
Throw in laziness (how much you want to work) and egoism (how much you need to gain/āget credit from do-gooding) and you get PARTICLE.
Interesting idea!
Iām keen for the language around this to convey the correct vibe about the epistemic status of the framework: currently I think this is āhere are some dimensions that I and some other people feel like are helpful for our thinkingā. But not āwe have well-validated ways of measuring any of these thingsā nor āthis is definitely the most helpful carving up in the vicinityā nor āthis was demonstrated to be helpful for building a theory of change for intervention X which did verifiably useful thingsā. I think the animal names/āpictures are kind of playful and help to convey that this isnāt yet attempting to be in epistemically-solid land?
I guess Iām interested in the situations where you think an abbreviation would be helpful. Do you want someone to make an EA personality test based on this?
Thanks for the response Owen. I understand about the epistemic status.
I imagine that I meet some new EA and I am trying to get to know them. After the standard where did you hear about EA, what cause areas are you most interested in, I might want to ask about the sort engagement they have with EA and doing good. At this point it would be useful to be able to reference the dimensions you have outlined and similar. I.e., āSo what sort of EA are you? How do you rate yourself on [abbreviation]?ā
As this example might suggest, I think that an abbreviation could make such conversations more likely to occur by making the dimensions you have outlined easier to recall and communicate and increasing the probability that they disseminate widely.
I donāt think that it is a high priority thing to do but I think that an EA/ādo-gooder personality test could be quite useful in the future for understanding differences between do-gooders (within and outside EA), connecting people to the right projects/ācauses, and building the right sorts of teams (i.e., with a balance of across key dimensions).
I know for example that Spencer Greenberg uses personality tests to help people determine fit for entrepreneurship and we could have something similar.
[Someone strongly downvoted this. Please feel free to leave a comment or send a message to explain why as otherwise I canāt update correctly!]