I know what Kirsten means—it does feel like “friends doing stuff” compared to the way some other big movements are run. I didn’t read it as being jarring and I don’t think it was intended as a massive criticism.
BUT “friends doing stuff” is good. We need to be trying stuff. And friends who know and trust each other and have a network and knowledge and understanding and who talk to each other and come up with ideas of things to try and actually try them: that is great. That is what so many large R&D organisations dream of but can never achieve, because they get stuck in formal structures and rigid policies. The EA movement is still very young, we need this mentality.
The alternative would seem to be to make trying new things harder. I’m not convinced that would be helpful.
The middle ground is probably where at a certain point in scaling up ideas (e.g. based on spend) there could be more scrutiny.
HOWEVER, where I don’t necessarily agree with Kirsten (based on my very limited experience) is on the questions of scrutiny or accountability. Having spent my career outside the EA environment, I can honestly say I have never before seen a group of people who more actively seek scrutiny, put there ideas out there and ask people to shoot at them.
I see organisations putting their research or action plans on here and saying “guys, this is what we plan to do—before we start, please tell us anything that you disagree with” and then engaging actively and constructively with all the feedback.
Maybe there are some formal accountability structures missing (because many organisations are like start-ups rather than big companies) - but I don’t think you want that to start too early. I can’t really comment on this, but I would imagine that most organisations would have some kind of review before investing a lot of money in scaling an idea—but might be happy to give someone $1000 and a few weeks to go and try something.
This is a very interesting comment and reaction.
I know what Kirsten means—it does feel like “friends doing stuff” compared to the way some other big movements are run. I didn’t read it as being jarring and I don’t think it was intended as a massive criticism.
BUT “friends doing stuff” is good. We need to be trying stuff. And friends who know and trust each other and have a network and knowledge and understanding and who talk to each other and come up with ideas of things to try and actually try them: that is great. That is what so many large R&D organisations dream of but can never achieve, because they get stuck in formal structures and rigid policies. The EA movement is still very young, we need this mentality.
The alternative would seem to be to make trying new things harder. I’m not convinced that would be helpful.
The middle ground is probably where at a certain point in scaling up ideas (e.g. based on spend) there could be more scrutiny.
HOWEVER, where I don’t necessarily agree with Kirsten (based on my very limited experience) is on the questions of scrutiny or accountability. Having spent my career outside the EA environment, I can honestly say I have never before seen a group of people who more actively seek scrutiny, put there ideas out there and ask people to shoot at them.
I see organisations putting their research or action plans on here and saying “guys, this is what we plan to do—before we start, please tell us anything that you disagree with” and then engaging actively and constructively with all the feedback.
Maybe there are some formal accountability structures missing (because many organisations are like start-ups rather than big companies) - but I don’t think you want that to start too early. I can’t really comment on this, but I would imagine that most organisations would have some kind of review before investing a lot of money in scaling an idea—but might be happy to give someone $1000 and a few weeks to go and try something.