Leverage Research has now existed for over 7.5 years1
Since 2011, it has consumed over 100 person-years of human capital.
Given by their own admission in a comment response to their original post, the author of this post is providing these facts so effective altruists can make an informed decision regarding potentially attending the 2018 EA Summit, with the expectation these facts can or will discourage EAs from attending the EA Summit, it’s unclear how these facts are relevant information.
In particular, no calculation or citation is provided for the estimate Leverage has consumed over 100 person-years of human capital. Numbers from nowhere aren’t facts, so this isn’t even a fact.
Regardless, no context or reference for why these numbers matter, e.g., by contrasting Leverage with what popular EA organizations have accomplished over similar timeframes or person-years of human capital consumed.
From 2012-16, Leverage Research spent $2.02 million, and the associated Institute for Philosophical Research spent $310k.23
As comments from myself; Tara MacAulay, former CEO of the CEA; and Geoff Anders, executive director of Leverage, has made clear, Leverage:
has never and does not intend to solicit donations from individuals part of the EA community at large.
has in the past identified as part of EA movement, and was formative to the movement in its earlier years, but now identifies as distinct from EA, while still respecting EA, and collaborating with EA organizations where their goals overlap with Leverage.
does not present itself as effective or impactful using the evaluation criteria most typical of EA, and shouldn’t be evaluated on those grounds, as has been corroborated by EA organizations which have collaborated with Leverage in the past.
Based on this, the ~$2 million Leverage spend from 2012-16 shouldn’t be, as a lump sum, regarded as having been spent under an EA framework, or on EA grounds, nor evaluated as a means to discourage individual effective altruists from forming independent associations with Leverage distinct from EA as a community. Both EA and Leverage confirm Leverage has in the past but for the present and last few years should not be thought of as an EA organization. Thus, arguing Leverage is deceiving the EA movement on the grounds they stake a claim on EA without being effective is invalid, because Leverage does no such thing.
Leverage Research previous organized the Pareto Fellowship in collaboration with another effective altruism organization. According to one attendee, Leverage staff were secretly discussing attendees using an individual Slack channel for each.
While like the facts in the above section, this is a fact, I fail to see how it’s notable regarding recruitment transparency regarding Leverage. I’ve also in the past criticized double standards regarding transparency in the EA movement, that organizations in EA should not form secret fora to the exclusion of others. That’s because it should be sufficient to ensure necessary privacy among and between EA organizations using things like private email, Slack channels, etc. What’s more, every EA organization I or others I’ve talked to have volunteered has something like a Slack channel. When digital communications internal to an organization are necessary to its operation, it has become standard practice for every organization in that boat to use something like an internal mailing list or Slack channel exclusive to their staff. That the Pareto Fellowship or Leverage Research would have Slack channels for evaluating potential fellows for recruitment on an individual basis may be unusual among EA organizations. But it’s not unheard of among how competent organizations operate. Also, it has no bearing on how Leverage might appeal to transparency while being opaque in a way other organizations associated with EA aren’t.
Also, since you’re seeking as much transparency about Leverage as possible, I expect your presentation will be transparent in kind. Thus, would you mind identifying the EA organization in question which was part of the collaboration with Leverage and the Pareto Fellowship you’re referring to?
Leverage Research sends staff to effective altruism organizations to recruit specific lists of people from the effective altruism community, as is apparent from discussions with and observations Leverage Research staff at these events.
As with the last statement, this may be unusual among EA organizations, but this is in Leverage’s past identifying as an EA organization, which they no longer do. There is nothing about this which is inherently a counter-effective organizational or community practice inside or outside of the EA movement, nor does have direct relevance to transparency, nor the author’s goal with this post.
Leverage Research has spread negative information about organisations and leaders that would compete for EA talent.
Who?
Leverage Research has had a strategy of using multiple organizations to tailor conversations to the topics of interest to different donors.
Like with other statements, I don’t understand how transparently exposing this practice is meant to as a fact back the author’s goal with this post, nor move readers’ impression of Leverage in whatever sense.
Leverage Research had longstanding plans to replace Leverage Research with one or more new organizations if the reputational costs of the name Leverage Research ever become too severe.
Given the number of claims in this post and in the comments from the same author presented as facts aren’t indeed facts, and so many of the facts stated are presented without context or relevance to the author’s goal, I’d like to see this claim substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Otherwise, I won’t find this claim credible enough to be believable.
In short, regarding the assorted facts, the author of this post (by their own admission in a comment response), is trying to prove something. And I can’t perceive how these facts and other claims made advances that goal. So my question to the author is: what is your point?
Given by their own admission in a comment response to their original post, the author of this post is providing these facts so effective altruists can make an informed decision regarding potentially attending the 2018 EA Summit, with the expectation these facts can or will discourage EAs from attending the EA Summit, it’s unclear how these facts are relevant information.
In particular, no calculation or citation is provided for the estimate Leverage has consumed over 100 person-years of human capital. Numbers from nowhere aren’t facts, so this isn’t even a fact.
Regardless, no context or reference for why these numbers matter, e.g., by contrasting Leverage with what popular EA organizations have accomplished over similar timeframes or person-years of human capital consumed.
As comments from myself; Tara MacAulay, former CEO of the CEA; and Geoff Anders, executive director of Leverage, has made clear, Leverage:
has never and does not intend to solicit donations from individuals part of the EA community at large.
has in the past identified as part of EA movement, and was formative to the movement in its earlier years, but now identifies as distinct from EA, while still respecting EA, and collaborating with EA organizations where their goals overlap with Leverage.
does not present itself as effective or impactful using the evaluation criteria most typical of EA, and shouldn’t be evaluated on those grounds, as has been corroborated by EA organizations which have collaborated with Leverage in the past.
Based on this, the ~$2 million Leverage spend from 2012-16 shouldn’t be, as a lump sum, regarded as having been spent under an EA framework, or on EA grounds, nor evaluated as a means to discourage individual effective altruists from forming independent associations with Leverage distinct from EA as a community. Both EA and Leverage confirm Leverage has in the past but for the present and last few years should not be thought of as an EA organization. Thus, arguing Leverage is deceiving the EA movement on the grounds they stake a claim on EA without being effective is invalid, because Leverage does no such thing.
While like the facts in the above section, this is a fact, I fail to see how it’s notable regarding recruitment transparency regarding Leverage. I’ve also in the past criticized double standards regarding transparency in the EA movement, that organizations in EA should not form secret fora to the exclusion of others. That’s because it should be sufficient to ensure necessary privacy among and between EA organizations using things like private email, Slack channels, etc. What’s more, every EA organization I or others I’ve talked to have volunteered has something like a Slack channel. When digital communications internal to an organization are necessary to its operation, it has become standard practice for every organization in that boat to use something like an internal mailing list or Slack channel exclusive to their staff. That the Pareto Fellowship or Leverage Research would have Slack channels for evaluating potential fellows for recruitment on an individual basis may be unusual among EA organizations. But it’s not unheard of among how competent organizations operate. Also, it has no bearing on how Leverage might appeal to transparency while being opaque in a way other organizations associated with EA aren’t.
Also, since you’re seeking as much transparency about Leverage as possible, I expect your presentation will be transparent in kind. Thus, would you mind identifying the EA organization in question which was part of the collaboration with Leverage and the Pareto Fellowship you’re referring to?
As with the last statement, this may be unusual among EA organizations, but this is in Leverage’s past identifying as an EA organization, which they no longer do. There is nothing about this which is inherently a counter-effective organizational or community practice inside or outside of the EA movement, nor does have direct relevance to transparency, nor the author’s goal with this post.
Who?
Like with other statements, I don’t understand how transparently exposing this practice is meant to as a fact back the author’s goal with this post, nor move readers’ impression of Leverage in whatever sense.
Given the number of claims in this post and in the comments from the same author presented as facts aren’t indeed facts, and so many of the facts stated are presented without context or relevance to the author’s goal, I’d like to see this claim substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Otherwise, I won’t find this claim credible enough to be believable.
In short, regarding the assorted facts, the author of this post (by their own admission in a comment response), is trying to prove something. And I can’t perceive how these facts and other claims made advances that goal. So my question to the author is: what is your point?