As you note, centralized funding in EA, and fear of offending the funding decision-makers, can create incentives to pre-emptively self-censor, and can reduce free-spirited ‘blurting’.
Additional suggestion: One way to help reduce this effect would be for EA funding decision-makers to give a little more feedback about why grant proposals get turned down. Several programs at the moment take the view that it’s reasonable to say ‘We just don’t have enough time or staff to give any individualized feedback about grant proposals that we don’t fund; sorry/not sorry’.
Someone may have spent several hours (or days) writing a grant proposal, and the proposal judges/funders may have spent a couple of hours reading it, but they can’t spend five minutes writing an explanation of why it’s turned down?
This lack of feedback can lead grant applicants to assume that there may have been personal, reputational, or ideological bias in the decision-making process. This might lead them to be extra-cautious in what they say in future on EA Forum, or in other contexts, for fear of offending the funding decision-makers.
tldr: if EA funders have time to read grant proposals and to take them seriously, then they have time to give honest, candid, constructive feedback on those proposals; this would help reduce fear and anxiety around the funding process, and would probably reduce self-censorship, and would promote a more resilient culture of blurting.
I totally agree with you regarding the value of feedback.
Someone may have spent several hours (or days) writing a grant proposal, and the proposal judges/funders may have spent a couple of hours reading it, but they can’t spend five minutes writing an explanation of why it’s turned down?
I’m also confused by this. I’m guessing it’s more about the discomfort around giving negative feedback, than it is about time?
I’m verry much in favour of acknowledging the cost associated with the energy drain of dealing with negative emotions. There are lots of things around the emotional cost of applications that could be improved, if we agreed that this is worth caring about.
Clarification (because based on past experience this seems to be necessary): I don’t think the feelings of fellow EA is the only thing that matters, or even the top priority or anything like that. What I do think is that we are losing both valuable people and productivity (who could have contributed to the mission) because we ignore that personal emotions is a thing that exists.
Linda—interesting ideas.
As you note, centralized funding in EA, and fear of offending the funding decision-makers, can create incentives to pre-emptively self-censor, and can reduce free-spirited ‘blurting’.
Additional suggestion: One way to help reduce this effect would be for EA funding decision-makers to give a little more feedback about why grant proposals get turned down. Several programs at the moment take the view that it’s reasonable to say ‘We just don’t have enough time or staff to give any individualized feedback about grant proposals that we don’t fund; sorry/not sorry’.
Someone may have spent several hours (or days) writing a grant proposal, and the proposal judges/funders may have spent a couple of hours reading it, but they can’t spend five minutes writing an explanation of why it’s turned down?
This lack of feedback can lead grant applicants to assume that there may have been personal, reputational, or ideological bias in the decision-making process. This might lead them to be extra-cautious in what they say in future on EA Forum, or in other contexts, for fear of offending the funding decision-makers.
tldr: if EA funders have time to read grant proposals and to take them seriously, then they have time to give honest, candid, constructive feedback on those proposals; this would help reduce fear and anxiety around the funding process, and would probably reduce self-censorship, and would promote a more resilient culture of blurting.
I totally agree with you regarding the value of feedback.
I’m also confused by this. I’m guessing it’s more about the discomfort around giving negative feedback, than it is about time?
I’m verry much in favour of acknowledging the cost associated with the energy drain of dealing with negative emotions. There are lots of things around the emotional cost of applications that could be improved, if we agreed that this is worth caring about.
Clarification (because based on past experience this seems to be necessary): I don’t think the feelings of fellow EA is the only thing that matters, or even the top priority or anything like that. What I do think is that we are losing both valuable people and productivity (who could have contributed to the mission) because we ignore that personal emotions is a thing that exists.