Thanks for the response Owen. I understand about the epistemic status.
I guess I’m 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., ‘So what sort of EA are you? How do you rate yourself on [abbreviation]?’
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 don’t think that it is a high priority thing to do but I think that an EA/do-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/causes, 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.