Peter Elam

EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

• Peter Elam 26 Jul 2022 14:21 UTC

  19 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matt_Sharp’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  That’s a great suggestion Matt, and I just added an executive summary.

• Peter Elam 25 Jul 2022 17:06 UTC

  17 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Mak­ing Effec­tive Altru­ism Enormous

  Really enjoyed this post and agree with it pretty much across the board. Two points that I especially liked.

  As long as they aren’t doing harm, there seems to be little reason to discourage donations or activism which improves the world a little because we disagree with their priorities, or think we know better. We probably want to encourage allies, instead of criticizing them—and in many cases, point out that the disagreements are minor, or straw men.

  and

  A movement that grows and remains viable needs to be one where we can be honest, but also not insult others’ choices and values.

What a Large and Wel­com­ing EA Could Accomplish

• Peter Elam 13 May 2022 3:41 UTC

  11 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Some clar­ifi­ca­tions on the Fu­ture Fund’s ap­proach to grantmaking

  As an applicant who was among those that were rejected, there are a couple of points that I wanted to add:

  1. The fundamentals of this grant program are awesome—I can’t stress this enough: a grant program of this size that is low red tape, rewards ambition, tolerates failure, and gives a quick decision is amazing. As you’re processing critical feedback, please don’t lose sight of the fact that the fundamentals of this program are awesome.

  2. One of biggest impacts of this program might be how it influences other grant makers—I totally understand that you want to have a large impact with the money you’re giving out, but I think your biggest positive impact could end up coming from inspiring other large grant makers. So many grant programs put up huge barriers to the exact types of people that are most likely to have a large impact. In the same way you were inspired by Fast Grants, if this program inspires others to streamline their application processes that will be a huge win.

  3. This was your first attempt at this—Your team is moving quickly with bold experiments. Of course there will be lessons learned and course corrections, but your ambition combined with your humble posture and request for feedback is commendable.

  4. Fairness and prudence are important, but so is emotional toll on the evaluators - It would be a major disappointment if your processes, while fair and thorough, turned out to be stressful and miserable for those evaluating the applications. In order for these calls to be sustainable, it’s important that those doing the work actually enjoy it instead of dreading it. It would be a shame if this wasn’t repeated because of how stressful it was for your team. This program is important! And it’s important to consider the human side of the process. In an ideal world this would be a fun process for both the applicants and the evaluators rather than a stressful one.

  This was a really important experiment, and I hope it was rewarding for your team.

• Peter Elam 16 Aug 2022 19:52 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Yale EA got an office. How did it go?

  I think this is a great post and I’m really glad that you wrote this up. You were very smart in the way that you approached this experiment and it sounds like you learned some valuable lessons. In general community spaces are very tricky to establish, and successful ones have to get a lot of details right.

• Peter Elam 27 Jul 2022 14:45 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: tc’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  Two points. First, I don’t think jettisoning the EA culture is desirable or even possible. As the movement grows some cultural change is inevitable, and posts about these cultural growing pains are some of the most popular on the forum. What I think is desirable is taking the best of what EA’s culture and people have to offer to help influence and improve all these other altruistic efforts. But doing that means a willingness to partner with and engage a wider group of people and organizations. The entire EA movement does not need to pivot in this way, but it is a direction that I think at least a modest of part of EA should explicitly start experimenting with in the name of maximizing impact. You conduct experiments, collect data, and go from there.

  Second. I think that ecosystem building is long and difficult work filled with a lot of very hard decisions. The reason people engage with it (including everyone involved in building the overall EA ecosystem) is because of the large payoffs if you are successful.

• Peter Elam 3 Aug 2022 16:13 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: gwern’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  There are probably hundreds of high schools located within close proximity to large US universities, including universities with stronger math programs than the University of Florida.

  The reason parents push to get on Mr. Frazer’s radar is because he built a successful ecosystem. One of the core reasons you build an ecosystem is to attract talent. The success of what he built is what attracts additional talent. When he started nobody was trying to get on his radar, that only happened once the program gained momentum.

  And of course tails, if they are remarkable, are reflected in averages. But all of that aside. Before he arrived and built the the program the math team was unremarkable. The thing that’s meaningfully different is what he built, not the talent pool he was drawing from (especially at the beginning). I’m sure the talent pool he’s drawing from now is much stronger.

• Peter Elam 8 Jun 2022 21:30 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: ‘EA Ar­chi­tect’: Up­dates on Civ­i­liza­tional Shelters & Ca­reer Options

  It’s awesome to see all of your work come together Tereza. I love your description of an EA Architect and what they could contribute. Working on shelters specifically seems like such an excellent use of your talents, and there are so many interesting design problems to tackle.

  If you haven’t seen it I recommend that you watch Antarctica: A Year On Ice about thef people that live at the main Antarctica research base year round. It’s basically a survival shelter type environment.

• Peter Elam 11 Apr 2022 23:39 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA group com­mu­nity ser­vice pro­jects, good or bad idea?

  I’m really impressed with this post, I think you did an excellent job describing both the need and possible benefits of this approach.

  A few thoughts

  Working side-by-side on a common goal is important for bonding—As you state, “We trust and love those who work and sacrifice alongside us. Using our hands and feet together is the most primal way we feel connected to others.”

  Make it fun, and have it culminate into something—When I was in high school I participated in an event where we did various odd-jobs and yard work for people for donations, and then used those donations to buy and deliver thanksgiving groceries for families in need. At the end of the day we had a community dinner. This was an incredibly memorable and bonding day, and the fact that it culminated in a dinner made a huge difference.

  Consider choosing something where there is an observable impact on other people—While picking up litter is great, I might consider choosing something where there is a tangible impact on other people that you can see. That will be more motivating.

  Involve local social impact organizations—As you state “Service projects are also an excellent way to build bridges to existing non-EA organizations, and to possibly pull those organizations in more impactful directions.” I would contact some local organizations that are doing work that you really respect and find out what their needs are. If you can organize events around helping existing organizations, you can start to really build a movement/​ecosystem that others will be attracted to.

  Try to incrementally progress towards a quantitative goal—Whatever activities you choose, if you can create some quantitative goal that everyone is working towards over time, that will be very motivating.

  I’m in the early stages of building a community hub along the lines that you’re thinking about, so I’ve been researching ideas like this for a long time. This stuff is really tricky to get right, but you seem like you’ve got a great head start on thinking this through.

• Peter Elam 2 Sep 2022 15:43 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jaime Sevilla’s comment on: Open EA Global

  This is antithetical to keeping EA weird.

  Is the goal of EA to maximize impact, or some other collection of things? If EA losing some of its distinct culture helps it execute on its stated core mission, isn’t that ok?

• Peter Elam 27 Jul 2022 16:02 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Rebecca’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  I just mean leadership in the most generic way; as in those that lead teams, organizations, hold government positions, etc.

  Are you able to expand a bit more on what you mean in “ I also think the subculture is stronger (and stranger) than many highly-committed EAs understand.”

  That would be a really long post. There’s the stated values of EA (which as I said are relatively sensible and uncontroversial), and the reality of actually interacting with EA. I read some comment on the forum (I can’t find it) that was talking about how EA in its current form is actually an amalgamation of several like-minded movements/​organizations (Givewell, rationalism community, etc.) and that really helped me understand the culture a lot better. I’d also say this post hits a lot of the highlights.

• Peter Elam 4 Aug 2022 16:18 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The (Cal­ifor­nia) case for State Ca­pac­ity as an EA cause area

  Strongly agree with all of the fundamental points of this post.

  I currently work for a shadow government NGO of sorts in California that was spun up to address the massive governance failures in the state in the late 2000s.

  Improving governance in California, I see you like working on the easy problems huh? ;-)

  I completely agree governance is the big fundamental problem that underlies most of the others, and that so much impact work is treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease. It strikes me that what’s most needed is leaders who can coordinate efforts and point the way forward in tangible ways (your list is a start). Maybe that’s you?

  What links here?

  • Covid 8/​18/​22: CDC Ad­mits Mistakes by Zvi (LessWrong; 18 Aug 2022 14:30 UTC; 46 points)

• Peter Elam 27 Jul 2022 2:21 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  Again, from my (an admitted outsider) perspective there seems to be a tension between “this is who we’re for and this is how we do things” and the actual goal of maximizing impact. I’m all about trying to maximize impact, I’m not sure that I would have been a part of the various organizations that EA seems to be an amalgamation of.

  I think a bigger tent version of EA is definitely a community I could join, but as it stands right now the biggest benefit for me is connecting with individuals within the movement that are like-minded. This post and some other conversations have really helped me do that.

• Peter Elam 3 Aug 2022 15:53 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ESRogs’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  Analysis is of course incredibly important no matter what you are trying to do. Analysis coupled with building/​data gathering/​experimentation is much better than analysis alone.

  “It’s much easier, and more reliable, to assess a project once it’s already been tried.”

  you also don’t want us to be too wedded to our conclusions

  Isn’t not being wedded to your conclusions a core idea of the EA movement?

  But I just want to emphasize that, in my view, analysis (and specifically cause neutrality) is what makes EA unique. If you take out the analysis, then it’s not clear what value EA has to offer the rest of the charity /​ social impact world.

  So of course I am not suggesting EA take out the analysis. From my post:

  • It provides a place for analysis and practice to intersect—Many current EAs may be stronger in gathering and analyzing data to help guide and influence those on the front lines. At the same time, all analysis is improved by interaction with the real world. This represents a place where those that analyze and those that build can interact to their mutual benefit.

  My second thought is what is EAs core priority? Is it uniqueness or impact? If becoming less unique increases your impact would you choose to become less unique? If the core value is maximizing impact, all secondary values should be subordinate to that one.

• Peter Elam 27 Jul 2022 14:53 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Rebecca’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  I think the world would unquestionably benefit from a more efficient/​effective philanthropy sector. A central tenet of EA seems to be that the philanthropic sector is too inefficient. I think that sentiment is very uncontroversial, even among those operating within the sector. Engaging with those in the sector that share your core values, and helping them become more efficient, is a great way to maximize impact (in my view). I also think the statement ‘more than what EAs would otherwise be doing’ reflects a scarcity mindset that made a lot more sense in days past. EA has traditionally been a small movement, it doesn’t have to remain that way.

• Peter Elam 26 Jul 2022 21:54 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: mlsbt’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  Thank you for the reply Martin!! And I completely agree that I made some large claims without sufficient evidence. That’s primarily because I got feedback that the post was very long as-is, and I made a decision not to flesh out the leadership part (which could be a very long post of its own).

  I just want to be clear that I actually don’t want EA to make any significant pivot. I do think that leadership/​governance is not discussed by the community to the level of its importance, but I don’t know if corruption/​poor governance is a tractable problem for EA (maybe it is, I genuinely don’t know).

  My main recommendation, and what I’m fundamentally arguing for, is that EA become a bigger tent organization that builds ecosystems of altruistic leaders and builders, and that engages with the larger nonprofit community in order to systematically improve it.

  There are a lot of wonderful-sounding ideas like ecosystem-building out there, that hit all the right intuitions and are hard to explicitly argue against.

  Totally agree. Which is why I recommend a series of (relatively) small scale ecosystem building experiments to learn from. As I say, this could be done at low cost, but it does represent a shift from the current strategies that I’ve seen. I think a lot of these experiments would fail, but the ones that didn’t could be quite impactful and could yield some very important insights. But I’m not suggesting a fundamental EA pivot in funding priorities or anything like that.

  In terms of the governance/​corruption stuff.

  I would just say that the link between good governance and desirable outcomes is a very strong one, and that counterexamples are more an exception to the rule (typically places that are extraordinarily gifted with natural resources like Kuwait). There is of course a lot of evidence to back that up, but here is once piece (Human Development Index vs. Corruption Perception Index).

  I’ve heard many people say that the Chinese economic miracle is the largest poverty reduction program in history. That was set in motion (I think pretty much uncontroversially) by a change in leadership from Mao to Deng. Singapore’s economic transformation under Lee Kuan Yew was perhaps even more miraculous given the city’s lack of resources and foreign support in the beginning.

  There is of course a lot more to be said here, but I would just say the Mexico/​governance/​corruption points were secondary to my main points. And I completely agree they were not adequately supported. I could make a much stronger support of those points, but that would be an entire post.

• Peter Elam 24 Aug 2022 16:50 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: [Cause Ex­plo­ra­tion Prizes] Eco­nomic Growth and State Ca­pac­ity

  Excellent post! And completely agree that as you adopt a longterm focus, growth and state capacity become even more important.

• Peter Elam 3 Aug 2022 15:56 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Rebecca’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  Analysis is of course incredibly important no matter what you are trying to do. Ecosystem building requires an incredible amount of analysis to answer these and a myriad of other questions. But analysis coupled with building/​data gathering/​experimentation is much better than analysis alone.

  From my post:

  • It provides a place for analysis and practice to intersect—Many current EAs may be stronger in gathering and analyzing data to help guide and influence those on the front lines. At the same time, all analysis is improved by interaction with the real world. This represents a place where those that analyze and those that build can interact to their mutual benefit.

• Peter Elam 3 Aug 2022 15:29 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Locke’s comment on: EA’s Cul­ture and Think­ing are Severely Limit­ing its Impact

  If you find out, let me know!