One specific related take that I’d note is that I’ve noticed that the top specific people donors (I.E. Jaan Tallinn / Dustin Moskovitz / others, not OP) get a great amount of respect and deference.
I think that these people are creating huge amounts of value.
However, I think a lot of people assume that the people contributing the most to EA (these donors) are the “most intense and committed EAs”, and I think that’s not the case. My impression is that these donors, while very smart and hardworking, are quite distinct from most “intense and committed EAs.” They often have values and beliefs that are fairly different. I suspect that they donate to EA causes not because they are incredibly closely aligned, but because EA causes/organizations represent some of the closest options available of existing charity options.
Again, I think that their actions are overall quite good and that these people are doing great work.
But at the same time, when I look at the people I find most inspiring, or that I’d personally place the greatest trust if I had a great deal of money, I’d probably place it more in others I see on the extreme of hard working, intelligent, and reasonable, who often are researchers with dramatically lower net worths.
Correspondingly, one of the things I admire most about many top donors is their ability to defer to others who are better positioned to make specific choices. Normally, “Finding the best people for the job, accepting it’s not you, and then mostly getting out of the way” is about the best you can do as an individual donor.
Relatedly, one thing I’ve been thinking about since posting this is how much Distinction feels relevant to EA (though I’m hesitant to cite continental philosophy on the EA Forum of all places!)
I think specifically, EA sometimes concentrates different types of power (e.g. financial, cultural/social, etc) into funders, and doing that is inherently distorting. E.g. I’m thinking about things like: having funders be keynote speakers at events, etc. that elevates funder social position relative to other people.
My experience of the animal welfare space, say, where the deference issues don’t come up as much (though has plenty of other funder-related issues!) is that the funders have lots of financial power, but besides two specific people, aren’t given much social/cultural power, and most the social/cultural power is held by people who don’t distribute funding. I also have heard of things like funders being considered for speaking at conferences, and people pushing back on it a bit out of these kinds of concerns. I think maybe some more healthy skepticism about mixing power types could be helpful?
One specific related take that I’d note is that I’ve noticed that the top specific people donors (I.E. Jaan Tallinn / Dustin Moskovitz / others, not OP) get a great amount of respect and deference.
I think that these people are creating huge amounts of value.
However, I think a lot of people assume that the people contributing the most to EA (these donors) are the “most intense and committed EAs”, and I think that’s not the case. My impression is that these donors, while very smart and hardworking, are quite distinct from most “intense and committed EAs.” They often have values and beliefs that are fairly different. I suspect that they donate to EA causes not because they are incredibly closely aligned, but because EA causes/organizations represent some of the closest options available of existing charity options.
Again, I think that their actions are overall quite good and that these people are doing great work.
But at the same time, when I look at the people I find most inspiring, or that I’d personally place the greatest trust if I had a great deal of money, I’d probably place it more in others I see on the extreme of hard working, intelligent, and reasonable, who often are researchers with dramatically lower net worths.
Correspondingly, one of the things I admire most about many top donors is their ability to defer to others who are better positioned to make specific choices. Normally, “Finding the best people for the job, accepting it’s not you, and then mostly getting out of the way” is about the best you can do as an individual donor.
Yeah, that is a great point.
Relatedly, one thing I’ve been thinking about since posting this is how much Distinction feels relevant to EA (though I’m hesitant to cite continental philosophy on the EA Forum of all places!)
I think specifically, EA sometimes concentrates different types of power (e.g. financial, cultural/social, etc) into funders, and doing that is inherently distorting. E.g. I’m thinking about things like: having funders be keynote speakers at events, etc. that elevates funder social position relative to other people.
My experience of the animal welfare space, say, where the deference issues don’t come up as much (though has plenty of other funder-related issues!) is that the funders have lots of financial power, but besides two specific people, aren’t given much social/cultural power, and most the social/cultural power is held by people who don’t distribute funding. I also have heard of things like funders being considered for speaking at conferences, and people pushing back on it a bit out of these kinds of concerns. I think maybe some more healthy skepticism about mixing power types could be helpful?