UK Civil Servant and prolific tweeter (@EAheadlines)
Kirsten
Hey Maya, I like your post. It has a very EA conversational style to it which will hopefully help it be well received and I’m guessing took some effort.
A problem I can’t figure out, which you or someone else might be able to help suggest solutions to -
-If I (or someone else) post about something emotional without suggestions for action, everyone’s compassionate but nothing happens, or people suggest actions that I don’t think would help
-If I (or someone else) post about something emotional and suggest some actions that could help fix it, people start debating those actions, and that doesn’t feel like the emotions are being listened to
-But just accepting actions because they’re linked to a bad experience isn’t the right answer either, because someone could have really useful experience to share but their suggestions might be totally wrong
If anyone has any suggestions, I’d welcome them!
This is entirely consistent with two other applications I know of from 2023, both of which were funded but experienced severe delays and poor/absent/straightforwardly unprofessional communication
To be honest I’m relieved this is one of the top comments. I’ve seen Kathy mentioned a few times recently in a way I didn’t think was accurate and I didn’t feel able to respond. I think anyone who comes across her story will have questions and I’m glad someone’s addressed the questions even if it’s just in a limited way.
I don’t know if you need someone to say this, but:
You can often do more good outside of an EA organisation than inside one. For most people, the EA community is not the only good place to look for grantmaking or research jobs.
If I could be a grantmaker anywhere, I’d probably pick the Gates Foundation or the UK Government’s Department for International Development. If I could be a researcher anywhere, I might choose Harvard’s Kennedy School of Public Policy or the Institute for Government. None of these are “EA organisations” but they would all most likely allow me to do more good than working at GiveWell. (Although I do love GiveWell and encourage interested applicants to apply!)
Some people already know this and have particular reasons they want to work in an EA organisation, but some don’t, so I thought it was worth saying.
“the top 1% stay on the New York Times bestseller list more than 25 times longer than the median author in that group.”
FWIW my intuition is not that this author is 25x more talented, but rather that the author and their marketing team are a little bit more talented in a winner-takes-most market.
I wanted to point this out because I regularly see numbers like this used to justify claims that individuals vary significantly in talent or productivity. It’s important to keep the business model in mind if you’re claiming talent based on sales!
(Research citations are also a winner-takes-most market; people end up citing the same paper even if it’s not much better than the next best paper.)
- EA Forum Prize: Winners for March 2021 by 22 May 2021 4:34 UTC; 26 points) (
- 29 Mar 2021 15:09 UTC; 18 points) 's comment on How much does performance differ between people? by (
I’ve also been surprised to see Jacy engaging publicly with the EA community again recently, without any public communication about what’s changed.
I’m glad there’s a way for people to be able to raise concerns about a problem within the community, without telling the world they’re a victim or fearing retaliation.
We still don’t have enough money to bring everyone out of extreme poverty, even if EA spent all its money. The fact that I can still save a child’s life with my donations really motivates me to help where I can.
That said, as a student, it might be worth saving until you’ve finished your studies, especially if you don’t have a safety net to fall back on (like parents or a spouse).
I’m sure other people have answers about why they’d prefer not to have people book meetings based on attraction, but I’d like to say I support this kind of thing being reported to the Community Health team. The EAG team have repeatedly asked people not to use EAG or the Swapcard app for flirting. 1-1s at EAG are for networking, and if you’re just asking to meet someone because you think they’re attractive, there’s a good chance you’re wasting their time. It’s also sexualizing someone who presumably doesn’t want to be because they’re at a work event. Reporting this kind of breach of EAG rules seems entirely appropriate!
https://twitter.com/amylabenz/status/1558435599668895745?s=46&t=unZ0UrHR9pJNN03keeNXcw
- 6 Dec 2022 1:27 UTC; 34 points) 's comment on I’m a 22-year-old woman involved in Effective Altruism. I’m sad, disappointed, and scared. by (
The dynamics in this post seem weird. John is very well-respected within EA for his work on climate change, and having this report commissioned by Will makes it even more likely to be disseminated quickly and widely throughout the community.
In my opinion that means it’s particularly essential that thoughtful critiques are brought up earlier rather than later. Of course the report has already been reviewed by a lot of people I respect, but in general I’m in favour of people asking questions and raising concerns here, even though I would expect most concerns to have already been thought about and be relatively easily addressed, or in some cases not worth addressing.
So I’d like to encourage people to post these questions, concerns and critiques, but I think the environment in these comments hasn’t always been encouraging. People have been significantly downvoted for reasons I don’t understand, and John has in one case accused someone of misrepresenting their identity which I don’t think was helpful.
Do people agree with me that we should encourage people to post their questions and concerns here, even if you don’t agree with the specific questions? Do people agree the current environment isn’t ideal for that?
I think this comment is really lovely, and a very timely message. I’d support it being turned into a top-level post so more people can see it, especially if you have anything more to add.
I’d love for EA Global events to become more conducive to small group conversations. Right now they feel heavily focused on 1:1s. I’d love for it to be easier to book a conversation or find a place to sit with 2-4 people I have a common interest with.
I disagree that it’s impossible to give constructive feedback on 1700 applications.
I could imagine FTX Future Fund having a couple of standardized responses, rather than just one. For example:
Your application was rejected because based on the information provided it did not appear to be in scope for what we fund (link to the page that sets out what you fund)
Your application appears to be in scope for what we fund. We weren’t currently confident in the information provided about [theory of change / founding team / etc]. It might still be a good fit for another grantmaker. If you do decide to update that section, feel free to re-apply to a future round of funding.
potentially a response for applications you think are an especially bad idea?
Whistleblower anonymity should remain protected in the vast majority of situations, including this one, imo
Weak downvote because “Have you considered following the style and norms of other comments on the forum?” is needlessly rude
I’m happy that people are pushing back on some of these grants, and even happier that Habryka is responding to graciously. However, I’m concerned that some comments are bordering on unhelpfully personal.
I’d suggest that, when criticising a particular project, commentors should try to explain the rule or policy that would help grant-makers avoid the same problem in the future. That should also help us avoid making things personal.
Examples I stole from other comments and reworded:
-”I’m skeptical of the grant to X because I think grantmakers should recuse themselves from granting to their friends.” (I saw this criticism but don’t actually know who it’s referring to.)
-”I don’t think any EA Funds should be given to printing books that haven’t been professionally edited.”
-”I think that people like Lauren should have funds available after they burn out, but I don’t think the Long-Term Future Fund is the right source of post-burnout funds.”
When I think “community builder”, I think of someone who’s running an EA group longterm, potentially for years. I think this policy works for one-off events but how does it work for longterm community builders?
Another suggestion for fellow native speakers: if someone asks you “Can you repeat that?”, don’t rephrase what you said, just repeat the exact same words in the same order.
Lots of people are perfectly capable of understanding what you said, you just said it too fast!
Thank you for this excellent write-up! I agree with CEA’s aims for 2019. As EA grows and EA organizations start to professionalize, I think I will be most impressed if 2019 is a year of doing the basics well. For example:
-Staff respond to emails within 48 hours.
-CEA invests in improving the security of personal data they hold.
-80% of public commitments are met on time; overdue commitments have a clear communications strategy.
-Hiring rounds include clear criteria and happen over a predetermined period of time.
I’m happy with your aims and I look forward to seeing what you’ll do next year!
- 17 Sep 2022 16:43 UTC; 5 points) 's comment on Red Teaming CEA’s Community Building Work by (
Julia, I really appreciate you explaining your role here. I feel uneasy about the framing of what I’ve read. It sounds like the narrative is “Owen messed up, Julia knew, and Julia messed up by not saying more”. But I feel strongly that we shouldn’t have one individual as a point of failure on issues this important, especially not as recently as 2021. I think the narrative should be something closer to “Owen messed up, and CEA didn’t (and still doesn’t) have the right systems in place to respond to these kinds of concerns”