Can you share anything from the discussion about what to do about the problems?
(Most of this post is “here’s what we think the problems are” – would be super interesting to see ”...and here’s what we think we should do about it.”)
Seconded: great post with good questions, but also soliciting anonymous recommendations (even if half-baked) seems valuable. To piggyback on John_Maxwell comment above, the EA leaders sound like they might have contradicting opinions, but it’s possible they collectively agree on some more nuanced position. This could be clarified if we heard what they would actually have the movement do differently.
When I read Movement Collapse Scenarios, it struck me how EA is already pretty much on a Pareto frontier, in that I don’t think we can improve anything about the movement without negatively affecting something else (or risking this). From that post, it seemed to me that most steps we could take in reducing risk from Dilution increase the risk from Sequestration, and vice versa.
And of course just being on a Pareto frontier by itself doesn’t mean the movement’s anywhere near the right point(s), because the tradeoffs we make certainly matter. It’s just that when we say “EA should be more X” or “EA should have less Y”, this is often meaningless (if taken literally), unless we’re willing to make the tradeoff(s) that entails.
[I went to the leaders forum. I work for 80,000 Hours but these are my personal thoughts.]
One thing to say is in terms of next steps, it’s actually pretty useful just to sync up on what people thought were the problems we should be putting attention to: like that we should be thinking more about how to be overtly appreciative. For example, in my case that means that when I do 80,000 Hours advising calls I pay a bit more attention to making sure people realise I’m grateful for the amazing work they’re doing, or how nice it is to talk to someone working hard at finding the most impactful career path.
We did also brainstorm specific ways in which lots of people can do more to increase that vibe. One example is to point out on the forum when there are particular things you found useful or appreciated. (Eg:https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wL6nzXsHQEAZ2WJcR/summary-of-core-feedback-collected-by-cea-in-spring-summer#4KHwoAjsiED7tQEg3) I think that’s the kind of thing it’s easy to overlook doing, because it doesn’t seem like it’s moving dialogue forward in a way that offering constructive feedback does. But actually it seems really valuable to do, both because it gives writers on the forum information about what’s useful to people in a way that’s more specific than just upvotes, and because it gives everyone the sense that the forum is a friendly space to contribute.
We also discussed specific ways those at the Leaders Forum might use to try to improve the culture. In particular, we considered ways to have more open discussions about effective altruism as appreciative and inclusive. For example, many of us thought we should be doing more to highlight how amazing it is for someone to be earning a typical US salary and donating 10% of that, and thereby saving someone’s life from malaria every year. On the side of inclusivity, it seemed as if some people worried about effective altruism needing to be something that took over your life to the exclusion of other important life goals. Doing AMAs (like the one Will did recently) and podcast episodes in which people can candidly talk about their views seemed like good ways for some of us to talk about how we feel about these things. (For example, I just recorded a podcast episode about 80,000 Hours advising, in which I also chat briefly about how I’m about to go on maternity leave.) These are all small steps to take, but the hope would be that together they can influence the general culture of the effective altruism community towards feeling friendlier and more inclusive.
In a workshop titled “Solutions in EA”, participants considered ways in which they/their organizations/the community could respond to some of these problems. They also voted on others’ suggestions. Some of the most popular ideas:
“In general, try to notice when we can appreciate people for things they’ve done and express that appreciation.”
“Profile individuals outside bio / AI that seem to be doing high impact things (e.g. Center for Election Science).”
“Whenever possible, talk about how awesome it that (say) people with ordinary jobs donate 10% to effective charities, and how honored you are to be a part of a community of people like that.”
“Much heavier caveating about the certainty of our intellectual frameworks and advice in general; instead, more emphasis on high-level principles we want to see followed and illustration of relevant principles.”
Huh, these are pretty vague & aspirational. (Overall I agree with the sentiments they’re expressing, but they’re not very specific about what changes to make to the status quo.)
Did these ideas get more cashed out / more operationalized at the Leaders Forum? Did organizations come away with specific next actions they will be taking towards realizing these ideas?
Those were excerpts of notes taken during a longer and more detailed discussion, for which I wasn’t in the room (since I was there for operations, not to take part in sessions).
My impression is that the discussion involved some amount of “cashing out and operationalization”. The end-of-event survey given to participants included a question: “Are there any actions you plan to take as a results of the Forum?” and several answers clearly hearkened back to these discussion topics. That survey was separate from the Priorities survey and participants took it without the expectation that answers would be shared, so I won’t go into specifics.
(I’ve shared this comment thread with a few attendees to whom I spoke about these issues, in case they want to say more.)
Ultimately the operationalising needs to be done by the organisations & community leaders themselves, when they do their own planning, given the details of how they interact with the community, and while balancing the considerations raised at the leaders forum against their other priorities.
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Can you share anything from the discussion about what to do about the problems?
(Most of this post is “here’s what we think the problems are” – would be super interesting to see ”...and here’s what we think we should do about it.”)
Seconded: great post with good questions, but also soliciting anonymous recommendations (even if half-baked) seems valuable. To piggyback on John_Maxwell comment above, the EA leaders sound like they might have contradicting opinions, but it’s possible they collectively agree on some more nuanced position. This could be clarified if we heard what they would actually have the movement do differently.
When I read Movement Collapse Scenarios, it struck me how EA is already pretty much on a Pareto frontier, in that I don’t think we can improve anything about the movement without negatively affecting something else (or risking this). From that post, it seemed to me that most steps we could take in reducing risk from Dilution increase the risk from Sequestration, and vice versa.
And of course just being on a Pareto frontier by itself doesn’t mean the movement’s anywhere near the right point(s), because the tradeoffs we make certainly matter. It’s just that when we say “EA should be more X” or “EA should have less Y”, this is often meaningless (if taken literally), unless we’re willing to make the tradeoff(s) that entails.
[I went to the leaders forum. I work for 80,000 Hours but these are my personal thoughts.]
One thing to say is in terms of next steps, it’s actually pretty useful just to sync up on what people thought were the problems we should be putting attention to: like that we should be thinking more about how to be overtly appreciative. For example, in my case that means that when I do 80,000 Hours advising calls I pay a bit more attention to making sure people realise I’m grateful for the amazing work they’re doing, or how nice it is to talk to someone working hard at finding the most impactful career path.
We did also brainstorm specific ways in which lots of people can do more to increase that vibe. One example is to point out on the forum when there are particular things you found useful or appreciated. (Eg:https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wL6nzXsHQEAZ2WJcR/summary-of-core-feedback-collected-by-cea-in-spring-summer#4KHwoAjsiED7tQEg3) I think that’s the kind of thing it’s easy to overlook doing, because it doesn’t seem like it’s moving dialogue forward in a way that offering constructive feedback does. But actually it seems really valuable to do, both because it gives writers on the forum information about what’s useful to people in a way that’s more specific than just upvotes, and because it gives everyone the sense that the forum is a friendly space to contribute.
We also discussed specific ways those at the Leaders Forum might use to try to improve the culture. In particular, we considered ways to have more open discussions about effective altruism as appreciative and inclusive. For example, many of us thought we should be doing more to highlight how amazing it is for someone to be earning a typical US salary and donating 10% of that, and thereby saving someone’s life from malaria every year. On the side of inclusivity, it seemed as if some people worried about effective altruism needing to be something that took over your life to the exclusion of other important life goals. Doing AMAs (like the one Will did recently) and podcast episodes in which people can candidly talk about their views seemed like good ways for some of us to talk about how we feel about these things. (For example, I just recorded a podcast episode about 80,000 Hours advising, in which I also chat briefly about how I’m about to go on maternity leave.) These are all small steps to take, but the hope would be that together they can influence the general culture of the effective altruism community towards feeling friendlier and more inclusive.
In a workshop titled “Solutions in EA”, participants considered ways in which they/their organizations/the community could respond to some of these problems. They also voted on others’ suggestions. Some of the most popular ideas:
“In general, try to notice when we can appreciate people for things they’ve done and express that appreciation.”
“Profile individuals outside bio / AI that seem to be doing high impact things (e.g. Center for Election Science).”
“Whenever possible, talk about how awesome it that (say) people with ordinary jobs donate 10% to effective charities, and how honored you are to be a part of a community of people like that.”
“Much heavier caveating about the certainty of our intellectual frameworks and advice in general; instead, more emphasis on high-level principles we want to see followed and illustration of relevant principles.”
Huh, these are pretty vague & aspirational. (Overall I agree with the sentiments they’re expressing, but they’re not very specific about what changes to make to the status quo.)
Did these ideas get more cashed out / more operationalized at the Leaders Forum? Did organizations come away with specific next actions they will be taking towards realizing these ideas?
Those were excerpts of notes taken during a longer and more detailed discussion, for which I wasn’t in the room (since I was there for operations, not to take part in sessions).
My impression is that the discussion involved some amount of “cashing out and operationalization”. The end-of-event survey given to participants included a question: “Are there any actions you plan to take as a results of the Forum?” and several answers clearly hearkened back to these discussion topics. That survey was separate from the Priorities survey and participants took it without the expectation that answers would be shared, so I won’t go into specifics.
(I’ve shared this comment thread with a few attendees to whom I spoke about these issues, in case they want to say more.)
Ultimately the operationalising needs to be done by the organisations & community leaders themselves, when they do their own planning, given the details of how they interact with the community, and while balancing the considerations raised at the leaders forum against their other priorities.