Increasing purity tests
If you call them ‘purity tests’ that has a bad connotation.
whether or not this person agrees with the EA consensus on [insert topic here]
Obviously that test would be terrible for the intellectual and epistemic environment of EA. We shouldn’t screen on ‘whether agrees with outcome’...
But it is reasonable to consider ‘epistimic virtues’ as inputs … ‘whether someone engages in honest debate, their reasoning is transparent’ … something less stringent than the (CEA principles)[https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ceas-guiding-principles] perhaps.
I also think considerations like ‘does this person have a track record of engaging with EA and EA-adjacent activities before applying for this’ should yield some good signaling/screening value.
(I see Mauricio made a similar point)
If you call them ‘purity tests’ that has a bad connotation.
Obviously that test would be terrible for the intellectual and epistemic environment of EA. We shouldn’t screen on ‘whether agrees with outcome’...
But it is reasonable to consider ‘epistimic virtues’ as inputs … ‘whether someone engages in honest debate, their reasoning is transparent’ … something less stringent than the (CEA principles)[https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ceas-guiding-principles] perhaps.
I also think considerations like ‘does this person have a track record of engaging with EA and EA-adjacent activities before applying for this’ should yield some good signaling/screening value.
(I see Mauricio made a similar point)