Not sure I correctly understand your situation (I have not lived in the bay for more than a few weeks), but I think it can be worth doing the following:
State your affinity for EA, maybe even with some explanation
Let people get the wrong impression of what it means to you anyway
[Highly contextual] correct this impression, either through immediate explanation or letting your actions speak
-> over time, this can help everyone see the core value of what you cherish and reduce the all too common understanding of EA as an identity (within and outside of EA). We all need to work on not identifying with our convictions to avoid being soldiers.
Most interactions are iterative, not one offs. You could help people understand that EA is not == AI xrisk.
If you think EA is about a general approach to doing good, explaining this more often would help you and the xrisk people. Identities are often pushed onto us and distort discourse. I see it as part of my responsibility to counteract this wherever I can. Otherwise, my affiliation would mostly be a way to identify myself as “in-group”—which reinforces the psycho-social dynamics that build the “out-group” and thus identity politics.
Your example seems to be an opportunity to help people better understand EA or even to improve EA with the feedback you get. You don’t necessarily have to stay on top of the news—on the contrary, it helps if you show that everyone can make it their own thing as long as the basic tenets are preserved.
I understand this might be effortful for many. I don’t want to pressure anyone into doing this because it can also look defensive and reinforce identity politics. I figured it might be worth laying out this model to make it easier for people to sit through the discomfort and counteract an oversimplified understanding of what they cherish—whether that’s EA or anything else.
I think this is a good approach for iterative interactions.
I also want to flag that for one off interactions, they might be one off as a result of people evaluating you based on their (false) impression of you. Job interviews, cover letters, and first dates are obvious example. But even casually meeting a new person for the first time without a structure of assessment/evaluation (imagine a friend’s birthday party, an conference, or a Meetup-type social event) involves that person deciding if they would want to spend time with you. So if I tell a sibling that I am interested in EA ideas we will almost certainly have the space/time to discuss the details of what that means. But new and unformed social relationships often won’t be given that space/time to understand nuance.
This is interesting because I can tell you that—being a retired military servicemember—I’ve encountered some of the same discrimination and labeling within the EA community that EAs claim to experience from non-EAs. To use Alix Pham’s verbiage in an earlier post in a separate context “‘people don’t talk to you’ (because they project some beliefs on you you actually don’t have)”. Thankfully, engaging with the EA community (at least those with whom I’ve engaged) over the last several years have changed their minds (e.g. that I don’t come here to infiltrate the EA community or to arm the EA community, etc). In my Defense community, it is generally inadvisable to claim the EA moniker, while ironically it seemed inadvisable to claim being a former servicemember in my EA community. (It was a challenge being PNG’ed* in both communities that one wants to represent and bridge together, but I digress.)
Additionally, I believe that the term “soldier bias” creates the very confirmation bias within the EA community that EAs generally try to avoid; by automatically claiming that all soldiers have this particularly zealous bias. See the irony there? I know that there are several former servicemembers within the EA community who are proud and outstanding EAs (though many of them have been hesitant to openly divulge their previous profession, as they have told me). I think the “soldier bias” term would be unacceptable as a professional and formal naming convention if you replaced “soldier” with any other profession’s name when it is meant in a negative context.
Not sure I correctly understand your situation (I have not lived in the bay for more than a few weeks), but I think it can be worth doing the following:
State your affinity for EA, maybe even with some explanation
Let people get the wrong impression of what it means to you anyway
[Highly contextual] correct this impression, either through immediate explanation or letting your actions speak
-> over time, this can help everyone see the core value of what you cherish and reduce the all too common understanding of EA as an identity (within and outside of EA). We all need to work on not identifying with our convictions to avoid being soldiers.
Most interactions are iterative, not one offs. You could help people understand that EA is not == AI xrisk.
If you think EA is about a general approach to doing good, explaining this more often would help you and the xrisk people. Identities are often pushed onto us and distort discourse. I see it as part of my responsibility to counteract this wherever I can. Otherwise, my affiliation would mostly be a way to identify myself as “in-group”—which reinforces the psycho-social dynamics that build the “out-group” and thus identity politics.
Your example seems to be an opportunity to help people better understand EA or even to improve EA with the feedback you get. You don’t necessarily have to stay on top of the news—on the contrary, it helps if you show that everyone can make it their own thing as long as the basic tenets are preserved.
I understand this might be effortful for many. I don’t want to pressure anyone into doing this because it can also look defensive and reinforce identity politics. I figured it might be worth laying out this model to make it easier for people to sit through the discomfort and counteract an oversimplified understanding of what they cherish—whether that’s EA or anything else.
I think this is a good approach for iterative interactions.
I also want to flag that for one off interactions, they might be one off as a result of people evaluating you based on their (false) impression of you. Job interviews, cover letters, and first dates are obvious example. But even casually meeting a new person for the first time without a structure of assessment/evaluation (imagine a friend’s birthday party, an conference, or a Meetup-type social event) involves that person deciding if they would want to spend time with you. So if I tell a sibling that I am interested in EA ideas we will almost certainly have the space/time to discuss the details of what that means. But new and unformed social relationships often won’t be given that space/time to understand nuance.
This is interesting because I can tell you that—being a retired military servicemember—I’ve encountered some of the same discrimination and labeling within the EA community that EAs claim to experience from non-EAs. To use Alix Pham’s verbiage in an earlier post in a separate context “‘people don’t talk to you’ (because they project some beliefs on you you actually don’t have)”. Thankfully, engaging with the EA community (at least those with whom I’ve engaged) over the last several years have changed their minds (e.g. that I don’t come here to infiltrate the EA community or to arm the EA community, etc). In my Defense community, it is generally inadvisable to claim the EA moniker, while ironically it seemed inadvisable to claim being a former servicemember in my EA community. (It was a challenge being PNG’ed* in both communities that one wants to represent and bridge together, but I digress.)
Additionally, I believe that the term “soldier bias” creates the very confirmation bias within the EA community that EAs generally try to avoid; by automatically claiming that all soldiers have this particularly zealous bias. See the irony there? I know that there are several former servicemembers within the EA community who are proud and outstanding EAs (though many of them have been hesitant to openly divulge their previous profession, as they have told me). I think the “soldier bias” term would be unacceptable as a professional and formal naming convention if you replaced “soldier” with any other profession’s name when it is meant in a negative context.
*Persona non grata
Thank you John for sharing! This is super interesting.
Particularly, the “PNG” part makes me reflect on community belonging and inclusivity, I think it’s an important part.