I could imagine Bob beating Alice for a âbuild a new groupâ 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, Iâd choose âepistemicsâ 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 arenât as sociable (but have great epistemics) go into other positions. This state of affairs allows for âEA leaders love epistemicsâ and âgroup leaders stand out for other traitsâ at the same time.
Finally, you mentioned âfamiliarityâ 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 âcould this person explain these topics in a nuanced way?â and âcould this person successfully lead a deep, thoughtful discussion on these topics?â 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 âgood epistemicsâ things.
This is a tricky question to answer, and thereâs some validity to your perspective here.
I was speaking too broadly when I said there were ârare exceptionsâ when epistemics werenât the top consideration.
Imagine three people applying to jobs:
Alice: 3â5 friendliness, 3â5 productivity, 5â5 epistemics
Bob: 5â5 friendliness, 3â5 productivity, 3â5 epistemics
Carol: 3â5 friendliness, 5â5 productivity, 3â5 epistemics
I could imagine Bob beating Alice for a âbuild a new groupâ 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, Iâd choose âepistemicsâ 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 arenât as sociable (but have great epistemics) go into other positions. This state of affairs allows for âEA leaders love epistemicsâ and âgroup leaders stand out for other traitsâ at the same time.
Finally, you mentioned âfamiliarityâ 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 âcould this person explain these topics in a nuanced way?â and âcould this person successfully lead a deep, thoughtful discussion on these topics?â 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 âgood epistemicsâ things.