Thanks for this post. I have some disagreements but I want to say that this part in particular is pretty common and is a big problem I have with the EA “big wigs” culture.
I’ve applied for a few jobs in EA over the years. I didn’t get them. This was painful. In one case I was doing 25+ hours a week freelance work for an org for several months, it went really well, they put up a job posting with precisely my current duties and invited me to apply, then hired someone else. This was very painful, and strongly discouraged me from applying to full time EA roles in the future.
This seems to be really common and it’s totally understandable to feel hurt. One of the things that drives us to EA is the desire to contribute, and naturally our self-worth can get very tied up in that. I really hope that orgs can do a lot better on this, because I think this and similar things are pretty harmful.
I disagree and agree with various parts of your post.
But if you’re worrying about alienating people in the periphery, and you’re in the center, it’s worth considering that people in the periphery probably just aren’t paying much attention to how much status you are assigning them.
I agree, this summarizes a vibe I’ve felt before. I think their concern shouldn’t be worrying about “alienating” the edge of EA, but more on positively framing it—making it easy for us to contribute as much as possible.
However, I think some of how you are phrasing this is a bit odd
I will maintain my pledge with a similar level of pride and joy no matter what the official recommendation to current Yale students in EA student groups is (not to undermine them—they are very important, just approximately irrelevant to my life). I am in Florida. Most of my friends work at restaurants or for the state government. Sure, it feels nice when people across the country want to include me or rank me well, [...]
Recommending actions in EA are about making an impact, not about status! Why will you maintain your pledge no matter what?? Are you certain you are having the biggest impact you can?
Now, if you don’t want to change your life very much, that’s totally fine, but I just think it isn’t about status.
There is plenty of status though. Obviously EAs do get caught up in pursuing status, consciously or not, and also we do tend to think of highly impactful people as high status. However, that’s a bad thing, not a good thing. Status assignment and signalling can only make our reasoning worse, not better.
Anyway I think your post is pretty good for making people think, so thanks.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
In both cases, people can be repeatedly rejected and get extremely disheartened.
Some things that can be done:
Communicate (with real examples?) the level of competence required for success in a job / funding application. Unfortunately “apply but don’t get sad at rejection” is an unrealistic message to send. Go the other way, and try to make people’s self-screening more accurate.
Provide better feedback for rejected applicants.
Provide more opportunities for up-skilling.
Try really, really hard not to filter based on unchangeable parts of people’s background such as their education (esp. fanciness of school) and location. (and of course ethnicity, gender etc.)
I’ve been meaning to write a post but it’s a big ball of thoughts and I don’t have the right structure for it.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
I’m a bit confused, because this doesn’t seem to match the scenario described in the OP that you quoted. My summary of that scenario would be:
An EA org paid the OP to work for them as a contractor;
The org then invited them to apply for an open position for a similar role;
They didn’t get the position (presumably because the org found another candidate they thought would be better?).
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP in this scenario, and expect it was a very painful and disheartening experience. I definitely cringe a bit when I read it. But it doesn’t seem to me like anyone did anything wrong here—it just seems like the kind of unfortunate-but-unavoidable situation that comes up all the time in the workplace. But you’re saying this is “harmful” and that orgs need to “do a lot better”, which suggests that you disagree?
I was kind of off-topic and responding to something a bit more general. Since writing my comment I have found someone on the forum summarizing my perspective better.
Thanks for this post. I have some disagreements but I want to say that this part in particular is pretty common and is a big problem I have with the EA “big wigs” culture.
This seems to be really common and it’s totally understandable to feel hurt. One of the things that drives us to EA is the desire to contribute, and naturally our self-worth can get very tied up in that. I really hope that orgs can do a lot better on this, because I think this and similar things are pretty harmful.
I disagree and agree with various parts of your post.
I agree, this summarizes a vibe I’ve felt before. I think their concern shouldn’t be worrying about “alienating” the edge of EA, but more on positively framing it—making it easy for us to contribute as much as possible.
However, I think some of how you are phrasing this is a bit odd
Recommending actions in EA are about making an impact, not about status! Why will you maintain your pledge no matter what?? Are you certain you are having the biggest impact you can?
Now, if you don’t want to change your life very much, that’s totally fine, but I just think it isn’t about status.
There is plenty of status though. Obviously EAs do get caught up in pursuing status, consciously or not, and also we do tend to think of highly impactful people as high status. However, that’s a bad thing, not a good thing. Status assignment and signalling can only make our reasoning worse, not better.
Anyway I think your post is pretty good for making people think, so thanks.
Can you elaborate on what part of this you think is harmful, and what would be better?
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need talent” gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
Strong messaging to the effect of “we need founders”, or “just apply for funding” gives the impression that you will get funding.
In both cases, people can be repeatedly rejected and get extremely disheartened.
Some things that can be done:
Communicate (with real examples?) the level of competence required for success in a job / funding application. Unfortunately “apply but don’t get sad at rejection” is an unrealistic message to send. Go the other way, and try to make people’s self-screening more accurate.
Provide better feedback for rejected applicants.
Provide more opportunities for up-skilling.
Try really, really hard not to filter based on unchangeable parts of people’s background such as their education (esp. fanciness of school) and location. (and of course ethnicity, gender etc.)
I’ve been meaning to write a post but it’s a big ball of thoughts and I don’t have the right structure for it.
I’m a bit confused, because this doesn’t seem to match the scenario described in the OP that you quoted. My summary of that scenario would be:
An EA org paid the OP to work for them as a contractor;
The org then invited them to apply for an open position for a similar role;
They didn’t get the position (presumably because the org found another candidate they thought would be better?).
I have a lot of sympathy for the OP in this scenario, and expect it was a very painful and disheartening experience. I definitely cringe a bit when I read it. But it doesn’t seem to me like anyone did anything wrong here—it just seems like the kind of unfortunate-but-unavoidable situation that comes up all the time in the workplace. But you’re saying this is “harmful” and that orgs need to “do a lot better”, which suggests that you disagree?
Ok—this is a good critique of my comment.
I was kind of off-topic and responding to something a bit more general. Since writing my comment I have found someone on the forum summarizing my perspective better.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=mdhfHBe3k5wvqXfo2
and relatedly re. funding
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=eW8zdL2MiXsgNPgMa