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! :)
Right, I see how it can sound circular: ‘SMA isn’t EA because EA isn’t decentralised—yet SMA’s existence makes EA more decentralised, so SMA is now EA’. I’d say it’s less of a strict logical loop and more of a feedback thing. SMA can help broaden EA, but that process doesn’t instantly fold SMA into EA overnight.
Oh yes I agree.
Edit: I’ve written more about how I see EA Netherlands in relation to SMA here.
Thanks for sharing your experience! We at EA Netherlands have been thinking about final events lately. Could you share more specific details about what yours looked like? Agenda,vibes, etc.
Thank you for sharing this update! I’m interested in learning more about how you arrived at this decision, as we at EA Netherlands often encounter similar choices. Your insights could be really valuable for us.
Would you mind sharing a bit about your reasoning process?
Thanks again for keeping us informed!
Great articulation of something that’s very true!
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.
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!
Thanks for writing this Patrick!
While working on EA Netherlands’ annual report I wrote a small section about Rutger Bregman, the School for Moral Ambition, and how I now see EAN’s role in the Netherlands.
It’s been shared with other national organisers and with a few people in CEA, but I thought I’d post an edited version here in case it’s helpful to more people.
TL;DR: SMA is a more mainstream, career-focused offshoot: ~20 staff, three programs (outreach, community, fellowships), and an expanding audience. EA Netherlands is the nerdier cousin.