Thank you for having the courage to say this out loud.
Just remember that the “EA community” does not have a monopoly on doing good. If the atmosphere is toxic, people are just going to leave, and rightfully so. You will be better off, and do more good overall, in environments and spaces where you feel respected and safe. If EA is not committed to such a space, they will slowly die off, and be replaced by an organisation that is.
That’s a true point—but I don’t a good objective. EA should strive to exist with the best, highly-aligned to doing good people and I think we need a culture the prioritises people’s lived experiences, feelings, and interactions for that to happen.
Of course. I’m not involved in any irl EA communities so I can’t really judge how bad/good they are. It would be better if the current movement survived with good community norms in place, but if it doesn’t, it’s not the literal end of the world, a new, better community will replace it.
I had sort of the same reaction. To me, “doing the most good” is something I live by. I don’t identify as EA, but as altruistic.
I find it sort of interesting when people refer to the “EA community” and make efforts to change it. I mean, they’re not wrong, but from another perspective, the “EA community” is almost an overgeneralization. Like for instance there are animal rights activists, longtermists, and climate change activists all getting to know each other through EA. There are going to be toxic people or cliques, and it’s sort of weird to say “EA is ____” when plenty of people “within EA” have never met each other and have nothing to do with each other.
Just some thoughts. I don’t disagree with the original post.
In a world where the EA culture is bad, but where no-one else is really doing any better, we may not be able to be replaced in this way, and it becomes even more important to ensure that we get the culture right here.
I think an attitude of irreplaceablity can be dangerous: someone could easily make the mistake of thinking that bad apples need to be protected and covered up for in order to preserve the movement as a whole. (I certainly hope nobody thinks this way here, but this has happened before in other movements).
In truth, the ideas aren’t going away. Individual people can be replaced, and new groups can form in the event of a blowup. Try and fix the culture, sure, but if it’s too far gone, don’t be afraid to blow the whistle and blow it up, in the long term it’s healthier.
What does “blow it up” mean for an EA who decides the culture is beyond fixing, but who doesn’t have significant power within the community? Is it leaving the community in search for a better one to do good in?
Pretty much, yeah, along with exposing bad actors if you judge it safe to do so. There are plenty of non-EA orgs doing work that is effective, you can work them them and try and bring in principles of effectiveness.
Also toxic communities are inherently unsustainable, eventually enough people will leave that a splinter group can be made.
Thank you for having the courage to say this out loud.
Just remember that the “EA community” does not have a monopoly on doing good. If the atmosphere is toxic, people are just going to leave, and rightfully so. You will be better off, and do more good overall, in environments and spaces where you feel respected and safe. If EA is not committed to such a space, they will slowly die off, and be replaced by an organisation that is.
That’s a true point—but I don’t a good objective. EA should strive to exist with the best, highly-aligned to doing good people and I think we need a culture the prioritises people’s lived experiences, feelings, and interactions for that to happen.
Of course. I’m not involved in any irl EA communities so I can’t really judge how bad/good they are. It would be better if the current movement survived with good community norms in place, but if it doesn’t, it’s not the literal end of the world, a new, better community will replace it.
I had sort of the same reaction. To me, “doing the most good” is something I live by. I don’t identify as EA, but as altruistic.
I find it sort of interesting when people refer to the “EA community” and make efforts to change it. I mean, they’re not wrong, but from another perspective, the “EA community” is almost an overgeneralization. Like for instance there are animal rights activists, longtermists, and climate change activists all getting to know each other through EA. There are going to be toxic people or cliques, and it’s sort of weird to say “EA is ____” when plenty of people “within EA” have never met each other and have nothing to do with each other.
Just some thoughts. I don’t disagree with the original post.
In a world where the EA culture is bad, but where no-one else is really doing any better, we may not be able to be replaced in this way, and it becomes even more important to ensure that we get the culture right here.
I think an attitude of irreplaceablity can be dangerous: someone could easily make the mistake of thinking that bad apples need to be protected and covered up for in order to preserve the movement as a whole. (I certainly hope nobody thinks this way here, but this has happened before in other movements).
In truth, the ideas aren’t going away. Individual people can be replaced, and new groups can form in the event of a blowup. Try and fix the culture, sure, but if it’s too far gone, don’t be afraid to blow the whistle and blow it up, in the long term it’s healthier.
What does “blow it up” mean for an EA who decides the culture is beyond fixing, but who doesn’t have significant power within the community? Is it leaving the community in search for a better one to do good in?
Pretty much, yeah, along with exposing bad actors if you judge it safe to do so. There are plenty of non-EA orgs doing work that is effective, you can work them them and try and bring in principles of effectiveness.
Also toxic communities are inherently unsustainable, eventually enough people will leave that a splinter group can be made.