Either they start as grifters but actually get good results and then rise to power (at that point they might not be grifters anymore) or they donât get any results and donât rise to power.
I largely agree with this, but I think itâs important to keep in mind that âgrifterâ is not a binary trait. My biggest worry is not that people who are completely unaligned with EA would capture wealth and steer it into the void, but rather that of 10 EAâs the one most prone to âgriftingâ would end up with more influence than the rest.
What makes this so difficult is that the line between âgrifterâ and âskilled at navigating complicated social environmentsâ is pretty thin and the latter is generally a desirable trait.
Generally Iâm still not too worried about this, but I do think itâs a shame if we end up undervaluing talented people who are less good at âgriftingâ resulting in an ineffecient allocation of our human capital.
An example from my own life to illustrate the point: Someone jokingly pointed out to me that if I were to spend a few weeks in Oxford mingling with people, arguing for the importance of EU policy, that would potentially do more to change peopleâs minds than if I were to spend that time writing on the forum.
If this were true (I hope its not!), I donât think that is how people should make up their minds about the importance of cause-areas and I will not participate in such a system. Someone more prone to grifting would and end up with more influence.
if I were to spend a few weeks in Oxford mingling with people, arguing for the importance of EU policy, that would potentially do more to change peopleâs minds than if I were to spend that time writing on the forum.
I also donât know whether this is true, but the general idea that talking to people in person individually would be more persuasive than over text isnât surprising. Thereâs a lower barrier to ideas flowing, you can better see how the other person is responding, and you donât have consider how people not in the conversation might misinterpret you.
I largely agree with this, but I think itâs important to keep in mind that âgrifterâ is not a binary trait. My biggest worry is not that people who are completely unaligned with EA would capture wealth and steer it into the void, but rather that of 10 EAâs the one most prone to âgriftingâ would end up with more influence than the rest.
What makes this so difficult is that the line between âgrifterâ and âskilled at navigating complicated social environmentsâ is pretty thin and the latter is generally a desirable trait.
Generally Iâm still not too worried about this, but I do think itâs a shame if we end up undervaluing talented people who are less good at âgriftingâ resulting in an ineffecient allocation of our human capital.
An example from my own life to illustrate the point: Someone jokingly pointed out to me that if I were to spend a few weeks in Oxford mingling with people, arguing for the importance of EU policy, that would potentially do more to change peopleâs minds than if I were to spend that time writing on the forum.
If this were true (I hope its not!), I donât think that is how people should make up their minds about the importance of cause-areas and I will not participate in such a system. Someone more prone to grifting would and end up with more influence.
I also donât know whether this is true, but the general idea that talking to people in person individually would be more persuasive than over text isnât surprising. Thereâs a lower barrier to ideas flowing, you can better see how the other person is responding, and you donât have consider how people not in the conversation might misinterpret you.