I’m currently a co-director at EA Netherlands (with Marieke de Visscher). We’re working to build and strengthen the EA community here.
Before this, I worked as a consultant on urban socioeconomic development projects and programmes funded by the EU. Before that, I studied liberal arts (in the UK) and then philosophy (in the Netherlands).
Hit me up if you wanna find out about the Dutch EA community! :)
Just to chime in as someone doing professional community building—these surveys are very useful for all of the reasons David just gave.
Yup, I agree. I just don’t want people to see these survey results and go ‘oh, awareness amongst the general pop and elite undergrads is low and, of those who are aware, most are positive, ergo EA doesn’t have a reputational issue’.
By ‘us’ I mean EA Netherlands. I probably shouldn’t say which orgs I’m talking about, sorry.
My sense is that it’s more of an issue in the US amongst the very online (the e/acc part of very online and the woke side of very online).
I believe all of that is true, but at the same time, I’m almost certain we’ve lost significant credibility with key stakeholders, and sometimes I worry this isn’t taken seriously enough. Friendly organisations have explicitly stated they do not want to publicly associate with us due to our EA branding, as the EA brand has become a major drawback among their key stakeholders, particularly in the United States.
Thanks for the boost Jessica!
I agree completely! However, I feel obliged to point out that some EAs I know intentionally play down their EA associations because they think it will harm their careers. Often, these people are thinking of working in government.
I weakly think this is a mistake for two reasons. Firstly, as Mathias said, because EA appears to be generally seen as a positive thing (similar to climate change action, according to this study). Secondly, I think Ord is right when he says we could do with more earnestness and sincerity in EA.
Alix, ex-co-director at EA Switzerland, wrote up some interesting thoughts on this general subject here.
Interesting take! Thanks for sharing :)
Thanks! Yeah, I thought maybe this was what Larks was referring to. Putting to one side the question of whether that was a valuable discussion or not, I wouldn’t put that in the same category as OP’s post. The Manifest discussion was about whether an organisation such as Manifest should give a platform to people with views some people consider racist, OP’s post is an analysis of the policy platform of a leading candidate in what is arguably the world’s most important election. I wouldn’t describe the former discussion as ‘political’ in the same way that I would describe the OP’s post. But perhaps others see it differently?
I think it’s unfortunate that critiques of EA are sometimes dismissed because they seem superficial or misinformed. While this might be true in many cases, it’s still important for us to observe—and perhaps even engage with—these criticisms.
Why?
It’s beneficial for people to have an accurate understanding of what we’re doing.
We are partly responsible for ensuring this is the case.
When critiques are inaccurate, they reveal how others perceive us, giving us an opportunity to improve our communication.
Therefore, reading and considering these critiques can help us refine our approach and better convey our work.
If you’re looking for the meta organisations Ben is talking about, you can see all of the city and national groups funded by the Centre for Effective Altruism’s Community Building Grants programme under the ‘Groups’ tab on this page. This is probably one of the bigger groupings of meta organisations (in terms of longterm stable funding). You also check Marieke’s mindmap for a bunch of other meta organisations.
That’s an interesting point, and it does seem impactful when organisations succeed in introducing new talent to the EA/impact space, especially when it leads to long-term contributions. Isn’t this a key focus for most community building organisations, though? Or is there a nuance in the approach you’re describing that perhaps I’m missing?
Thanks!
Great stuff! Many thanks to the team and whoever commissioned this! Looking forward to future research in this direction.
So you think so far it’s mostly been OK? If that’s the case, and if it’s plausible that high-quality discussions about politics would be valuable, shouldn’t we lean towards loosening the policy and seeing what happens?
Best case, good discussions happen and the forum does a better job of meeting its objective. Worst case, bad discussion happens, but then it should be pretty simple to tighten the policy up and no lasting harm would be done.
Which posts? (you don’t need to list them, just briefly describe them so I can find them myself)
FWIW my impression is that EAG events are not generally considered to be a good fit for election discussion.
Could you provide examples of political discussions on the EA Forum that appear to have negatively impacted the forum’s environment or impaired its ability to achieve its objectives? While I find this plausible, I’d also expect the EA Forum to be one of the most conducive spaces online for constructive political discourse.
My understanding is that the forum’s primary goal is to support discussions relevant to effective altruism and facilitate the coordination of related projects. Given that politics is highly relevant to these aims, I believe there should be a strong(er) justification for any restrictions on political topics.
What do you see as the potential for non-EA funding opportunities for community building organisations like EA Netherlands? Currently, 95% of our funding comes from CEA, OP, and EA IF.
My sense is that non-EA funding might be viable for specific initiatives, like talent development programmes, but securing such funding for core EA community building activities — like community events, office spaces, organiser support, and outreach — seems much more challenging.
FYI the School for Moral Ambition has a career pledge. Participants of their circle programme (like an intro fellowship but self-facilitated) are encouraged to take it at the end. AFAIK, over 100 people have taken it so far. Might be worth reaching out to them to see what they’ve learned? Niki might be a good person to contact. She manages the circle programme and was a volunteer at EA Netherlands before that.