I.
My impression on this is there are large differences between “groups” on the “direct work” dimension. And it may be somewhat harmful if everybody tries to follow the same advice
(there is also some value of exploration, so certainly not everybody should follow closely the “best practices”).
Some important considerations putting different groups at different places on that dimension may be
The “impermanence” of student groups. If the average time a member spends in the group is something like 1.5 years, it is probably unwise to start large, long-term projects, as there is a large risk of failure when the project leaders move
In contrast, the permanence of national level chapters with some legal person form. These should be long-term stable, in part professional organizations, able to plan and execute medium and long-term projects. (Still the best opportunities may be in narrow community building)
Avallability of opportunities, and associated costs. If you happen to be a student in e.g. Oxford, and you want to do direct work in research, or advocacy, or policy, or… trying to do this on the platform of a student group makes much less sense than trying to work with CEA,FHI,GPI, etc. In contrast, if you happen to be a young professional in IT in let’s say Brno, such opportunities are far away from you.
II.
I completely agree with a point of Michal Trzesimiech that there’s value in culture of actually doing things.
III.
Everybody should keep somewhere back in their mind that the point from which scientific revolution actually took of was when people started interacting with reality by doing experiments :) (And I say this as a theorist to the bone.)
My impression on this is there are large differences between “groups” on the “direct work” dimension. And it may be somewhat harmful if everybody tries to follow the same advice (there is also some value of exploration, so certainly not everybody should follow closely the “best practices”).
Yes, I am very strongly of this opinion towards all advice for EA groups.
I. My impression on this is there are large differences between “groups” on the “direct work” dimension. And it may be somewhat harmful if everybody tries to follow the same advice (there is also some value of exploration, so certainly not everybody should follow closely the “best practices”).
Some important considerations putting different groups at different places on that dimension may be
The “impermanence” of student groups. If the average time a member spends in the group is something like 1.5 years, it is probably unwise to start large, long-term projects, as there is a large risk of failure when the project leaders move
In contrast, the permanence of national level chapters with some legal person form. These should be long-term stable, in part professional organizations, able to plan and execute medium and long-term projects. (Still the best opportunities may be in narrow community building)
Avallability of opportunities, and associated costs. If you happen to be a student in e.g. Oxford, and you want to do direct work in research, or advocacy, or policy, or… trying to do this on the platform of a student group makes much less sense than trying to work with CEA,FHI,GPI, etc. In contrast, if you happen to be a young professional in IT in let’s say Brno, such opportunities are far away from you.
II. I completely agree with a point of Michal Trzesimiech that there’s value in culture of actually doing things.
III. Everybody should keep somewhere back in their mind that the point from which scientific revolution actually took of was when people started interacting with reality by doing experiments :) (And I say this as a theorist to the bone.)
Yes, I am very strongly of this opinion towards all advice for EA groups.