Upvoted. This is a good summary of several different community structures, and you represent the strengths of hierarchy well (though I wish thereād been examples of what an individualās ājourney through the hierarchy processā might look like).
I think of EA as being fairly hierarchical already. There are dozens of different organizations geared toward different task/ācause combinations; if you tell me youāre a person with X experience who wants to do work of type Y in country Z, thereās a good chance an organization exists for that, at least for the most common causes/āmost EA-populated countries.
Thereās also a reasonably large population of people within EA who can offer suggestions if you ask āwhat should I do next?ā I sometimes see questions like that on Facebook or in CEA surveys (though not often on the Forum, yet), and I try to advise where I can. 80,000 Hours may not have the resources to coach hundreds of additional people, but Iād hope that people in the informal EA community (at least those who are pretty familiar with the landscape) would spend time giving advice.
Perhaps some of the available resources for finding oneās next move arenāt well-known enough? If anyone reading this found themselves in a place where they wanted to do EA work, didnāt know what to do next, and didnāt find a good way to learn about their options, Iād appreciate hearing your story!
--
Regarding this quote:
I would consider it a good result if the ātrailā behind the core of effective altruism movement was dotted with structures and organizations working on highly impactful problems, even if the problems are no longer on the exactly first place in current prioritization.
This seemsā¦ kind of true already? Itās hard to say what ācurrent prioritizationā entails, since āglobal health and povertyā gets more money from the EA community and has more open jobs than any other major area, but some of the largest EA organizations are more focused on long-term work. But since most people think of LTF as the ācurrentā priority, Iāll use global poverty as an example.
There are plenty of active, even thriving organizations working on global health/āpoverty that have strong connections to EA. 80,000 Hoursā job board lists dozens of positions in the area, and Tom Weinās collection of job boards features hundreds more (not all of those jobs are necessarily āEA-alignedā, but many are, and even organizations that arenāt maximally effective may offer great learning opportunities and much higher impact than an āaverageā job).
A job at the United Nations (there are a ton of those at the first non-80K link I clicked on from Tom Weinās list) may not have the same kind of prestige as an Open Phil job, but I still canāt imagine meeting someone who works for the UN at EA Global and not having (a) a bunch of questions Iām eager to ask them, and (b) respect for their perspective on global development causes.
Jan: How might the ātrailā you envision look different than what we have now? Is there some cause youāre thinking of that doesnāt have good organizations/āstructures because it is āno longer first placeā? (If the argument was āthere should be more orgs working on promising-but-seldom-prioritized topics like mental healthā, I think Iād be more in agreement.)
--
Also, this looks like a typo:
For example, part of the answers to the question āhow to influence the long-term futureā depend on the extent to which the world is world, or random, or predictable.
Upvoted. This is a good summary of several different community structures, and you represent the strengths of hierarchy well (though I wish thereād been examples of what an individualās ājourney through the hierarchy processā might look like).
I think of EA as being fairly hierarchical already. There are dozens of different organizations geared toward different task/ācause combinations; if you tell me youāre a person with X experience who wants to do work of type Y in country Z, thereās a good chance an organization exists for that, at least for the most common causes/āmost EA-populated countries.
Thereās also a reasonably large population of people within EA who can offer suggestions if you ask āwhat should I do next?ā I sometimes see questions like that on Facebook or in CEA surveys (though not often on the Forum, yet), and I try to advise where I can. 80,000 Hours may not have the resources to coach hundreds of additional people, but Iād hope that people in the informal EA community (at least those who are pretty familiar with the landscape) would spend time giving advice.
Perhaps some of the available resources for finding oneās next move arenāt well-known enough? If anyone reading this found themselves in a place where they wanted to do EA work, didnāt know what to do next, and didnāt find a good way to learn about their options, Iād appreciate hearing your story!
--
Regarding this quote:
This seemsā¦ kind of true already? Itās hard to say what ācurrent prioritizationā entails, since āglobal health and povertyā gets more money from the EA community and has more open jobs than any other major area, but some of the largest EA organizations are more focused on long-term work. But since most people think of LTF as the ācurrentā priority, Iāll use global poverty as an example.
There are plenty of active, even thriving organizations working on global health/āpoverty that have strong connections to EA. 80,000 Hoursā job board lists dozens of positions in the area, and Tom Weinās collection of job boards features hundreds more (not all of those jobs are necessarily āEA-alignedā, but many are, and even organizations that arenāt maximally effective may offer great learning opportunities and much higher impact than an āaverageā job).
A job at the United Nations (there are a ton of those at the first non-80K link I clicked on from Tom Weinās list) may not have the same kind of prestige as an Open Phil job, but I still canāt imagine meeting someone who works for the UN at EA Global and not having (a) a bunch of questions Iām eager to ask them, and (b) respect for their perspective on global development causes.
Jan: How might the ātrailā you envision look different than what we have now? Is there some cause youāre thinking of that doesnāt have good organizations/āstructures because it is āno longer first placeā? (If the argument was āthere should be more orgs working on promising-but-seldom-prioritized topics like mental healthā, I think Iād be more in agreement.)
--
Also, this looks like a typo: