I agree that these can technically all be true at the same time, but I think the tone/vibe of comments is very important in addition to what they literally say, and the vibe of Arepo’s comment was too tribalistic.
I’d also guess re: (3) that I have less trust in CEA’s epistemics to necessarily be that much better than Leverage’s , though I’m uncertain here (edited to add: tbc my best guess is it’s better, but I’m not sure what my prior should be if there’s a “he said / she said” situation, on who’s telling the truth. My guess is closer to 50⁄50 than 95⁄5 in log odds at least).
I agree that the tone was too tribalistic, but the content is correct.
(Seems a bit like a side-topic, but you can read more about Leverage on this EA Forum post and, even more importantly, in the comments. I hope that’s useful for you! The comments definitely changed my views—negatively—about the utility of Leverage’s outputs and some cultural issues.)
I’ve read it. I’d guess we have similar views on Leverage, but different views on CEA. I think it’s very easy for well-intentioned, generally reasonable people’s epistemics to be corrupted via tribalism, motivated reasoning, etc.
But as I said above I’m unsure.
Edited to add: Either way, might be a distraction to debate this sort of thing further. I’d guess that we both agree in practice that the allegations should be taken seriously and investigated carefully, ideally by independent parties.
Mea culpa for not being clear enough. I don’t think handwavey statements from someone whose credibility I doubt have much evidential value, but I strongly think CEA’s epistemics and involvement should be investigated—possibly including Vaughan’s.
I find it bleakly humourous to be interpreted as tribalistically defending CEA when I’ve written gradually more public criticismsofthem and their lack of focus -and honestly, while I don’t understand thinking they’re as bad as Leverage, I think they’ve historically probably been a counterfactual negative for the movement, and don’t have a good sense of whether things have improved.
Thanks for clarifying. To be clear, I didn’t say I thought they were as bad as Leverage. I said “I have less trust in CEA’s epistemics to necessarily be that much better than Leverage’s , though I’m uncertain here”
As I understood it, CEA was originally just a legal entity to save 80k and GWWC from having to both individually get charitable status, though GWWC had been around in some form since maybe 2007ish, and 80k for a year or two (and Givewell, which had started about the same time as CEA and arguably has as good a claim to having started it had no formal association with any of these orgs). The emerging movement might have taken its name from the new org, or maybe just started using the phrase in response to the poll result.
At some stage IIRC, CEA started taking on more responsibilities and distanced itself, and eventually split from its child orgs. From that point on, I feel like they have generally not been well run—the staff seem to have been hired for enthusiasm and allegiance to the cause, and sometimes apparent nepotism (they seem to have hired internally for quite a few positions) rather than competence. As far as I can tell, staff have neither a carrot to motivate them or a stick: I know of only two examples of CEA employees being pushed out, one of who was CEO, and those were, as I understand it, for behaviour that was unambiguously termination-worthy (CEA may not want to disclose details of specific individuals being let go, and if that has happened those individuals might understandably not want to talk about it either, but the org doesn’t eg have a clear policy for expecting high standards). Meanwhile they run multiple programs, the nature of which is constantly changing and lacks meaningful outcome metrics, meaning both that it’s hard to gauge how well they do what they do, and hard for alternative organisations to offer them high fidelity competition.
(excuse all the self-citations—I don’t know anyone else who’s been publicly writing anything highly critical of CEA since the funds criticism, though I’ve had a number of conversations with people who’re also cynical about the org. I’ve been fairly reluctant go on record with these views myself, and suspect I’m harming myself in expectation by doing so, since I’m interested in doing future EA-funded work)
To be clear a) I don’t think all CEA staff have been bad—some I think highly of, the vast majority I have no specific opinion of, just that the overall org has generally functioned ineffectively, b) most of the specific actions I have in mind date back at least a couple of years, before Max Dalton became ED, and c) I had a recent conversation with him and gave him these concerns, which he seemed somewhat open to. So it may be that they’re in a much better state under him. But I’m also wary of under-new-management-itis, under which a nonprofit org can’t be criticised for a couple or years after a change—which potentially puts the org beyond reproach if it cycles EDs often enough.
But good on you for being brave enough to publicly criticise your funding sources (“I have received EA funding in multiple capacities, and feel quite constrained in my ability to criticise CEA publicly”) or people you like (“I like everyone I’ve interacted with from CEA”).
I agree that these can technically all be true at the same time, but I think the tone/vibe of comments is very important in addition to what they literally say, and the vibe of Arepo’s comment was too tribalistic.
I’d also guess re: (3) that I have less trust in CEA’s epistemics to necessarily be that much better than Leverage’s , though I’m uncertain here (edited to add: tbc my best guess is it’s better, but I’m not sure what my prior should be if there’s a “he said / she said” situation, on who’s telling the truth. My guess is closer to 50⁄50 than 95⁄5 in log odds at least).
I agree that the tone was too tribalistic, but the content is correct.
(Seems a bit like a side-topic, but you can read more about Leverage on this EA Forum post and, even more importantly, in the comments. I hope that’s useful for you! The comments definitely changed my views—negatively—about the utility of Leverage’s outputs and some cultural issues.)
I’ve read it. I’d guess we have similar views on Leverage, but different views on CEA. I think it’s very easy for well-intentioned, generally reasonable people’s epistemics to be corrupted via tribalism, motivated reasoning, etc.
But as I said above I’m unsure.
Edited to add: Either way, might be a distraction to debate this sort of thing further. I’d guess that we both agree in practice that the allegations should be taken seriously and investigated carefully, ideally by independent parties.
Mea culpa for not being clear enough. I don’t think handwavey statements from someone whose credibility I doubt have much evidential value, but I strongly think CEA’s epistemics and involvement should be investigated—possibly including Vaughan’s.
I find it bleakly humourous to be interpreted as tribalistically defending CEA when I’ve written gradually more public criticisms of them and their lack of focus -and honestly, while I don’t understand thinking they’re as bad as Leverage, I think they’ve historically probably been a counterfactual negative for the movement, and don’t have a good sense of whether things have improved.
Thanks for clarifying. To be clear, I didn’t say I thought they were as bad as Leverage. I said “I have less trust in CEA’s epistemics to necessarily be that much better than Leverage’s , though I’m uncertain here”
I thought CEA started the movement?
As I understood it, CEA was originally just a legal entity to save 80k and GWWC from having to both individually get charitable status, though GWWC had been around in some form since maybe 2007ish, and 80k for a year or two (and Givewell, which had started about the same time as CEA and arguably has as good a claim to having started it had no formal association with any of these orgs). The emerging movement might have taken its name from the new org, or maybe just started using the phrase in response to the poll result.
At some stage IIRC, CEA started taking on more responsibilities and distanced itself, and eventually split from its child orgs. From that point on, I feel like they have generally not been well run—the staff seem to have been hired for enthusiasm and allegiance to the cause, and sometimes apparent nepotism (they seem to have hired internally for quite a few positions) rather than competence. As far as I can tell, staff have neither a carrot to motivate them or a stick: I know of only two examples of CEA employees being pushed out, one of who was CEO, and those were, as I understand it, for behaviour that was unambiguously termination-worthy (CEA may not want to disclose details of specific individuals being let go, and if that has happened those individuals might understandably not want to talk about it either, but the org doesn’t eg have a clear policy for expecting high standards). Meanwhile they run multiple programs, the nature of which is constantly changing and lacks meaningful outcome metrics, meaning both that it’s hard to gauge how well they do what they do, and hard for alternative organisations to offer them high fidelity competition.
(excuse all the self-citations—I don’t know anyone else who’s been publicly writing anything highly critical of CEA since the funds criticism, though I’ve had a number of conversations with people who’re also cynical about the org. I’ve been fairly reluctant go on record with these views myself, and suspect I’m harming myself in expectation by doing so, since I’m interested in doing future EA-funded work)
To be clear a) I don’t think all CEA staff have been bad—some I think highly of, the vast majority I have no specific opinion of, just that the overall org has generally functioned ineffectively, b) most of the specific actions I have in mind date back at least a couple of years, before Max Dalton became ED, and c) I had a recent conversation with him and gave him these concerns, which he seemed somewhat open to. So it may be that they’re in a much better state under him. But I’m also wary of under-new-management-itis, under which a nonprofit org can’t be criticised for a couple or years after a change—which potentially puts the org beyond reproach if it cycles EDs often enough.
But good on you for being brave enough to publicly criticise your funding sources (“I have received EA funding in multiple capacities, and feel quite constrained in my ability to criticise CEA publicly”) or people you like (“I like everyone I’ve interacted with from CEA”).