You say:
But I am confident that leaders’ true desire is “find people who have great epistemics [and are somewhat aligned]”, not “find people who are extremely aligned [and have okay epistemics]”.
I think that’s true for a lot of hires. But does that hold equally true when you think of hiring community builders specifically?
In my experience (5 ish people), leaders’ epistemic criteria seem less stringent for community building. Familiarity with EA, friendliness, and productivity seemed more salient.
I could imagine Bob beating Alice for a “build a new group” role (though I think many CB people would prefer Alice), because friendliness is so crucial.
I could imagine Carol beating Alice for an ops role.
But if I were applying to a wide range of positions in EA and had to pick one trait to max out on my character sheet, I’d choose “epistemics” if my goal were to stand out in a bunch of different interview processes and end up with at least one job.
One complicating factor is that there are only a few plausible candidates (sometimes only one) for a given group leadership position. Maybe the people most likely to actually want those roles are the ones who are really sociable and gung-ho about EA, while the people who aren’t as sociable (but have great epistemics) go into other positions. This state of affairs allows for “EA leaders love epistemics” and “group leaders stand out for other traits” at the same time.
Finally, you mentioned “familiarity” as a separate trait from epistemics, but I see them as conceptually similar when it comes to thinking about group leaders.
Common questions I see about group leaders include “could this person explain these topics in a nuanced way?” and “could this person successfully lead a deep, thoughtful discussion on these topics?” These and other similar questions involve familiarity, but also the ability to look at something from multiple angles, engage seriously with questions (rather than just reciting a canned answer), and do other “good epistemics” things.
Appreciate your comments, Aaron.
You say: But I am confident that leaders’ true desire is “find people who have great epistemics [and are somewhat aligned]”, not “find people who are extremely aligned [and have okay epistemics]”.
I think that’s true for a lot of hires. But does that hold equally true when you think of hiring community builders specifically?
In my experience (5 ish people), leaders’ epistemic criteria seem less stringent for community building. Familiarity with EA, friendliness, and productivity seemed more salient.
This is a tricky question to answer, and there’s some validity to your perspective here.
I was speaking too broadly when I said there were “rare exceptions” when epistemics weren’t the top consideration.
Imagine three people applying to jobs:
Alice: 3⁄5 friendliness, 3⁄5 productivity, 5⁄5 epistemics
Bob: 5⁄5 friendliness, 3⁄5 productivity, 3⁄5 epistemics
Carol: 3⁄5 friendliness, 5⁄5 productivity, 3⁄5 epistemics
I could imagine Bob beating Alice for a “build a new group” role (though I think many CB people would prefer Alice), because friendliness is so crucial.
I could imagine Carol beating Alice for an ops role.
But if I were applying to a wide range of positions in EA and had to pick one trait to max out on my character sheet, I’d choose “epistemics” if my goal were to stand out in a bunch of different interview processes and end up with at least one job.
One complicating factor is that there are only a few plausible candidates (sometimes only one) for a given group leadership position. Maybe the people most likely to actually want those roles are the ones who are really sociable and gung-ho about EA, while the people who aren’t as sociable (but have great epistemics) go into other positions. This state of affairs allows for “EA leaders love epistemics” and “group leaders stand out for other traits” at the same time.
Finally, you mentioned “familiarity” as a separate trait from epistemics, but I see them as conceptually similar when it comes to thinking about group leaders.
Common questions I see about group leaders include “could this person explain these topics in a nuanced way?” and “could this person successfully lead a deep, thoughtful discussion on these topics?” These and other similar questions involve familiarity, but also the ability to look at something from multiple angles, engage seriously with questions (rather than just reciting a canned answer), and do other “good epistemics” things.