TL;DR: Iāve kept my EA ties low-profile due to career and reputational concerns, especially in policy. But Iām now choosing to be more openly supportive of effective giving, despite some risks.
For most of my career, Iāve worked in policy rolesāfirst as a civil servant, now in an EA-aligned organization. Early on, both EA and policy work seemed wary of each other. EA had a mixed reputation in government, and I chose to stay quiet about my involvement, sharing only in trusted settings.
This caution gave me flexibility. My public profile isnāt linked to EA, and I avoided permanent records of affiliation. At times, Iāve even distanced myself deliberately. But Iām now wondering if this is limiting both my own impact and the spread of ideas I care about.
Ideas spread through visibility. I believe in EA and effective giving and want it to become a social normābut norms need visible examples. If no one speaks up, can we expect others to follow?
Iāve been cautious about reputational risksāespecially the potential downsides of being tied to EA in future influential roles, like running for office. EA still carries baggage: concerns about longtermism, elitism, the FTX/āSBF scandal, and public misunderstandings of our priorities. But these risks seem more manageable now. Most people I meet either donāt know EA, or have a neutral-to-positive view when I explain it. Also, my current role is somewhat publicly associated with EA, and that wonāt change. Hiding my views on effective giving feels less justifiable.
So, Iām shifting to increased openness: Iāll be sharing more and be more honest about the sources of my thinking, my intellectual ecosystem, and Iāll more actively push ideas around effective giving when relevant. Iāll still be thoughtful about context, but near-total caution no longer serves meāor the causes I care about.
This seems likely to be a shared challenge, curious how to hear how others are navigating it and whether your thinking has changed lately.
Speaking as someone who does community building professionally: I think this is great to hear! Youāre probably already aware of this post, but just in case, I wanted to reference Alixās nice write-up on the subject.
I also think many professional community-building organisations aim to get much better at communications over the next few years. Hopefully, as this work progresses, the general public will have a much clearer view of what the EA community actually isāand that should make it easier for you too.
Can you describe yourself āmoderately EA,ā or something like that, to distinguish yourself from the most extreme views?
The fact we have strong disagreements on this forum feels like evidence that EA is more like a dimension on the political spectrum, rather than a united category of people.
Interesting idea! This got me thinking about this, and I think I find it tricky because I want to stay close to the truth, and the truth is, Iām not really a āmoderate EAā. I care about shrimp welfare, think existential risk is hugely underrated, and believe putting numbers on things is one of our most powerful tools.
Itās less catchy, but Iāve been leaning toward something like: āIām in the EA movement. To me, that means I try to ask what would do the most good, and I appreciate the community of people doing the same. That doesnāt mean I endorse everything done under the EA banner, or how itās sometimes portrayed.ā
Should I Be Public About Effective Altruism?
TL;DR: Iāve kept my EA ties low-profile due to career and reputational concerns, especially in policy. But Iām now choosing to be more openly supportive of effective giving, despite some risks.
For most of my career, Iāve worked in policy rolesāfirst as a civil servant, now in an EA-aligned organization. Early on, both EA and policy work seemed wary of each other. EA had a mixed reputation in government, and I chose to stay quiet about my involvement, sharing only in trusted settings.
This caution gave me flexibility. My public profile isnāt linked to EA, and I avoided permanent records of affiliation. At times, Iāve even distanced myself deliberately. But Iām now wondering if this is limiting both my own impact and the spread of ideas I care about.
Ideas spread through visibility. I believe in EA and effective giving and want it to become a social normābut norms need visible examples. If no one speaks up, can we expect others to follow?
Iāve been cautious about reputational risksāespecially the potential downsides of being tied to EA in future influential roles, like running for office. EA still carries baggage: concerns about longtermism, elitism, the FTX/āSBF scandal, and public misunderstandings of our priorities. But these risks seem more manageable now. Most people I meet either donāt know EA, or have a neutral-to-positive view when I explain it. Also, my current role is somewhat publicly associated with EA, and that wonāt change. Hiding my views on effective giving feels less justifiable.
So, Iām shifting to increased openness: Iāll be sharing more and be more honest about the sources of my thinking, my intellectual ecosystem, and Iāll more actively push ideas around effective giving when relevant. Iāll still be thoughtful about context, but near-total caution no longer serves meāor the causes I care about.
This seems likely to be a shared challenge, curious how to hear how others are navigating it and whether your thinking has changed lately.
Speaking as someone who does community building professionally: I think this is great to hear! Youāre probably already aware of this post, but just in case, I wanted to reference Alixās nice write-up on the subject.
I also think many professional community-building organisations aim to get much better at communications over the next few years. Hopefully, as this work progresses, the general public will have a much clearer view of what the EA community actually isāand that should make it easier for you too.
Can you describe yourself āmoderately EA,ā or something like that, to distinguish yourself from the most extreme views?
The fact we have strong disagreements on this forum feels like evidence that EA is more like a dimension on the political spectrum, rather than a united category of people.
Interesting idea! This got me thinking about this, and I think I find it tricky because I want to stay close to the truth, and the truth is, Iām not really a āmoderate EAā. I care about shrimp welfare, think existential risk is hugely underrated, and believe putting numbers on things is one of our most powerful tools.
Itās less catchy, but Iāve been leaning toward something like: āIām in the EA movement. To me, that means I try to ask what would do the most good, and I appreciate the community of people doing the same. That doesnāt mean I endorse everything done under the EA banner, or how itās sometimes portrayed.ā
I really like this framing, this is what I do and use all the time as well as a full-time community builder and for me it works well.
Maybe say, I strongly believe in the principles[1] of EA.
The EA principles I follow does not include āthe ends always justify the means.ā
Instead, it includes:
Comparing charities and prosocial careers quantitively, not by warm fuzzy feelings
Animal rights, judged by the subjective experience of animals not how cute they look
Existential risk, because someday in the future weāll realize how irrational it was to neglect it