I’m not sure how common it is for people to experience hostility to criticism within the EA movement. I think apathy is a much more common response, one that I’ve experienced several times, and is no less damaging. If you don’t share the perspective as the EA organization you are criticizing, then you have an enormous burden of proof to get them to even pay attention. Whereas someone with the same perspective can write a few sentences including words like “epistemic status confident” or “likely” and it will be absorbed with enthusiasm. It’s easy to give up; how many times would you try walking into a church and persuading the priest to convert to another religion?
EA organizations aren’t unique in this flaw; there is a general human propensity to engage in motivated reasoning. It is elevated in the EA community because everyone is trying to work on “the most important thing”. That is identity forming, so criticisms strike personal—questioning value systems and capacity to reason.
Being able to openly, honestly, and enthusiastically accept criticism is a rare skill. It requires being as dedicated to being unsure as being right or “less wrong”. But being unsure doesn’t inspire action, so those ending up in leadership roles tend to be more obstinate than their waffling counterparts. I think organizations could correct for this by employing a jester or red team with equal status and decision making power as organizational leadership, but I’ve never seen this done well.
I’m not sure how common it is for people to experience hostility to criticism within the EA movement. I think apathy is a much more common response, one that I’ve experienced several times, and is no less damaging. If you don’t share the perspective as the EA organization you are criticizing, then you have an enormous burden of proof to get them to even pay attention. Whereas someone with the same perspective can write a few sentences including words like “epistemic status confident” or “likely” and it will be absorbed with enthusiasm. It’s easy to give up; how many times would you try walking into a church and persuading the priest to convert to another religion?
EA organizations aren’t unique in this flaw; there is a general human propensity to engage in motivated reasoning. It is elevated in the EA community because everyone is trying to work on “the most important thing”. That is identity forming, so criticisms strike personal—questioning value systems and capacity to reason.
Being able to openly, honestly, and enthusiastically accept criticism is a rare skill. It requires being as dedicated to being unsure as being right or “less wrong”. But being unsure doesn’t inspire action, so those ending up in leadership roles tend to be more obstinate than their waffling counterparts. I think organizations could correct for this by employing a jester or red team with equal status and decision making power as organizational leadership, but I’ve never seen this done well.