I had not heard of double-cruxing before reading about it above and I think I am an EA—haha! In my mind it suffices to be kind of open-minded and curious and have a strong will to be of service/help to others. Moreover, on team cohesion and culture I am not sure I fit neatly into EA either—I often receive a lot of downvotes here on the forum!
I kind of think EA or non-EA is a pretty long sliding scale and my completely unfounded observation is that there is a lot of talent currently employed or funded that almost tend more towards the non-EA scale. I feel like the “very EA” people might to a large degree be people that are “fans” of EA, engage a lot here on the forum but that might actually not have a high percentage of employment in EA orgs. But I could be wrong here—I have no data to back this up and think one could assert this to some degree from surveys if there are surveys that not only go out to EAs, but to people employed and funded by “EA orgs”.
I suspect that you are correct, Ulrik. A lot of EAs (myself included) often informally refer to people being EA as if that is a particular thing, but in reality it is actually an accumulation of dozens of little bits of knowledge, traits, preferences, and professed beliefs (like most identities/cultures). There are plenty of people that are 100% on board with using evidence and reasoning to do the most good that haven’t heard of specific terminology that EAs tend to use, or that haven’t considered the repugnant conclusion, and in my mind that doesn’t make them any less EA.
Maybe we could think of it as the core stuff that really matters, and all the surface-level stuff that happens to come along. Actually trying to do good matters and being intentional about helping others matters. Interest in particular topics or having read specific books just happens to come along.
I had not heard of double-cruxing before reading about it above and I think I am an EA—haha! In my mind it suffices to be kind of open-minded and curious and have a strong will to be of service/help to others. Moreover, on team cohesion and culture I am not sure I fit neatly into EA either—I often receive a lot of downvotes here on the forum!
I kind of think EA or non-EA is a pretty long sliding scale and my completely unfounded observation is that there is a lot of talent currently employed or funded that almost tend more towards the non-EA scale. I feel like the “very EA” people might to a large degree be people that are “fans” of EA, engage a lot here on the forum but that might actually not have a high percentage of employment in EA orgs. But I could be wrong here—I have no data to back this up and think one could assert this to some degree from surveys if there are surveys that not only go out to EAs, but to people employed and funded by “EA orgs”.
I suspect that you are correct, Ulrik. A lot of EAs (myself included) often informally refer to people being EA as if that is a particular thing, but in reality it is actually an accumulation of dozens of little bits of knowledge, traits, preferences, and professed beliefs (like most identities/cultures). There are plenty of people that are 100% on board with using evidence and reasoning to do the most good that haven’t heard of specific terminology that EAs tend to use, or that haven’t considered the repugnant conclusion, and in my mind that doesn’t make them any less EA.
Maybe we could think of it as the core stuff that really matters, and all the surface-level stuff that happens to come along. Actually trying to do good matters and being intentional about helping others matters. Interest in particular topics or having read specific books just happens to come along.