(remembered that I had drafted something and forgot about it, decided it would be better to post late than never)
I wonder how much some of these features are core differences as opposed to adaptations to a specific ecological niche. If that’s so, keeping it in mind may be helpful in conversations between the two movements, and in learning from each other.
For example, I suspect most people would not view the relationship with Open Phil as a core defining feature of EA. But I suspect that the dominance of a few highly-aligned funders helps explain things that could be seen as core differences.
Without suggesting that this is the major explanation, a more inclusive and supportive approach is relatively better adapted to some funding environments than others. If someone has an idea and gets funding from the Usual EA Sources, other EAs understandably see the opportunity cost as pretty high. If someone has an idea and gets funded by a Standard American Foundation, both SMAs and EAs probably would assess the opportunity cost as much lower. (While I don’t know where SMA folks anticipate getting funding, I get the sense that a larger proportion will come from less closely aligned funders than is the case in EA.) It’s easier to be supportive when the opportunity costs are lower.
Likewise, EA experienced atypical conditions at a particular point in its development—having high levels of funding relative to its number of adherents—and I suspect that shaped things that come across as more “core” nowadays. SMA is younger, and will likely be shaped in important ways by internal and external events during critical developmental phases.
(remembered that I had drafted something and forgot about it, decided it would be better to post late than never)
I wonder how much some of these features are core differences as opposed to adaptations to a specific ecological niche. If that’s so, keeping it in mind may be helpful in conversations between the two movements, and in learning from each other.
For example, I suspect most people would not view the relationship with Open Phil as a core defining feature of EA. But I suspect that the dominance of a few highly-aligned funders helps explain things that could be seen as core differences.
Without suggesting that this is the major explanation, a more inclusive and supportive approach is relatively better adapted to some funding environments than others. If someone has an idea and gets funding from the Usual EA Sources, other EAs understandably see the opportunity cost as pretty high. If someone has an idea and gets funded by a Standard American Foundation, both SMAs and EAs probably would assess the opportunity cost as much lower. (While I don’t know where SMA folks anticipate getting funding, I get the sense that a larger proportion will come from less closely aligned funders than is the case in EA.) It’s easier to be supportive when the opportunity costs are lower.
Likewise, EA experienced atypical conditions at a particular point in its development—having high levels of funding relative to its number of adherents—and I suspect that shaped things that come across as more “core” nowadays. SMA is younger, and will likely be shaped in important ways by internal and external events during critical developmental phases.