ex-CEA
Minimally passive community building work in Malaysia
Yi-Yang
Karma: 981
That sounds right!
Hmm depends on which resonates most. If you do come from an impressive background but still don’t feel valued and capable within EA, I would say disagree-vote here.
Thanks for asking! If you live in a high-income country but still feel a lot of envy with EAs who have more economic advantages, then I would still agree-vote.
Thanks for sharing! Hmm, that does pique my interest too..
Thanks, you’re right. I’m gesturing at the later.
1.a. I found EA’s reality more exclusive than its inclusive messaging suggested.
Needs not fulfilled: clarity, authenticity, equality
Associated emotions: confusion, disappointment, anger
Description: “I was drawn to EA because it seemed like an inclusive, compassionate community focused on doing the most good. The messaging talks about being welcoming to everyone, caring for all beings, and solving problems together. I expected something more like a collaborative movement where passionate people work together as equals. Instead, I found a highly stratified system, where only the most credentialed, accomplished, and competent people get funding, platforms, or influence. I feel disappointed. I know EA doesn’t advertise itself as democratic and egalitarian. But the gap between EA’s inclusive messaging and its exclusive reality leads to mismatched expectations.”
1.b. I found EA’s messaging accurately reflects its inclusive and meritocratic reality.
Needs fulfilled: clarity, authenticity, equality
Associated emotions: trust, satisfaction
Description: “I was drawn to EA because it seemed like a community focused on doing the most good, and I’ve found that it lives up to its messaging. Whilst EA does have standards and focuses on competence, I’ve experienced it as genuinely inclusive and welcoming to people from diverse backgrounds who are committed to EA principles. The stratification that exists seems merit-based rather than arbitrary— I’ve seen many examples of people without impressive credentials being given opportunities, funding, and platforms based on the quality of their ideas and work. I appreciate that EA is honest about being a movement focused on expertise and impact rather than pure egalitarianism, which helps set appropriate expectations. The gap between messaging and reality feels minimal, and I feel like I can trust what EA organisations say about their values and practices.”
1. EA brand
2.a. I’ve seen EA organisations select people who fit in rather than those who perform best.
Needs not fulfilled: effectiveness, equality
Associated emotions: worry, envy, anger
Description: “I’m worried that EA organisations and programmes are systematically selecting the wrong people for important roles. I’ve noticed concerning patterns where personal connections, shared backgrounds, or ideological alignment appear to matter more than merit or accomplishments. Furthermore, I’m unsure whether they adequately screen for integrity, which is especially crucial for leadership positions. The tendency for EAs to live together in group houses and maintain close personal relationships creates additional conflicts of interest that can compromise objective evaluation. I worry that this creates a self-perpetuating cycle where people are selected based on their similarity to existing influential EAs rather than their ability to effectively create impact.”
2.b. I’ve seen EA organisations effectively select based on merit and potential.
Needs fulfilled: effectiveness, equality
Associated emotions: confidence, trust, satisfaction
Description: “I’m impressed by how EA organisations have developed robust selection processes. Whilst I understand the inherent difficulty in predicting who will perform excellently, I’ve observed thoughtful hiring practices that focus on demonstrated competence, relevant experience, and integrity rather than familiarity with current leaders. I’ve seen people from underrepresented backgrounds succeed in gaining positions based purely on their competence and potential impact. EA organisations also seem to actively guard against conflicts of interest. Even when there are social connections within the community, I’ve witnessed organisations maintain professional standards and objective evaluation criteria. Rather than creating a self-perpetuating cycle of similarity, the selection processes seem designed to bring in fresh perspectives and diverse talent.”
2. Selection processes
3.a. I’ve experienced EA’s social dynamics as protecting influential members from accountability.
Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice
Associated emotions: worry
Description: “I’m concerned that EA’s social dynamics create unhealthy power structures that protect influential members from accountability. Access to information and opportunities depends on personal connections with influential EAs, favouring socially skilled individuals, sycophants, or those sharing their demographics. There’s an exclusive ‘in-group’ social scene that’s difficult to break into without displaying the right social signals or adopting orthodox positions. Even when done in a genuine truth-seeking manner, expressing certain views or asking uncomfortable questions can lead to social ostracism or retaliation, as seen in the high number of anonymous users on the EA Forum. This creates an environment where challenging powerful people becomes risky. I worry that these dynamics make it easier for influential members to avoid scrutiny and harder for the community to self-correct when problems arise.”
3.b. I’ve experienced EA’s social dynamics as encouraging healthy accountability.
Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice
Associated emotions: trust, optimistic, calmness
Description: “I’m impressed by how EA’s social dynamics actively promote accountability and encourage open, honest discourse. Access to information and opportunities does not depend on personal connections. The community feels genuinely welcoming to different perspectives, and I’ve observed heated but respectful debates on contentious topics without fear of retribution. People regularly challenge established figures and orthodox positions, and these challenges are taken seriously rather than dismissed. I appreciate how the community values intellectual humility, with influential members regularly acknowledging when they’ve made mistakes or changed their minds. There’s a healthy culture of constructive criticism where challenging powerful people is seen as valuable rather than risky.”
3. Social dynamics
4.a. I found EA competitive beneath its collaborative surface.
Needs not fulfilled: cooperation, peace
Associated emotions: tenseness, mistrustfuless
Description: “Despite EA’s emphasis on collaboration, I’ve found it to be an intensely competitive environment beneath the surface. Whilst resources and influence aren’t entirely zero-sum, they’re still quite limited, which creates real competition for funding, opportunities, and social status within the movement. Yes, there’s a supportive culture on the surface, but I’ve observed a hidden layer of politicking that feels at odds with EA’s stated values. Privileged members have significant advantages—safety nets that let them take risks and weather setbacks that would derail others. It sounds admirable when wealthy, well-connected people ‘give back’ through EA work, but I resent how this allows them to accumulate moral status and recognition more easily than those of us without such advantages.”
4.b. I found EA genuinely collaborative despite competitive elements.
Needs fulfilled: cooperation, peace
Associated emotions: secure, trustingness
Description: “Whilst EA does have some competitive elements, I’ve found it to be genuinely collaborative and supportive in practice. Yes, resources and influence are limited, which naturally creates some competition for funding and opportunities, but I’ve observed people actively supporting each other rather than undermining competitors. Whilst wealthy, well-connected people do gain recognition for their EA work, I’ve seen them consistently use their platforms to highlight others’ contributions and support people from less privileged backgrounds, either through mentorship or financial support. Rather than hidden politicking, I’ve witnessed transparent discussions between competitors. They openly discuss how to best compete and cooperate to produce the best outcome for the world. The competitive elements that do exist feel healthy and constructive rather than destructive or zero-sum.”
4. Competition vs. collaboration
5.a. I sense constant evaluation and judgment
Needs not fulfilled: acceptance, authenticity
Associated emotions: fear, tenseness, shame
Description: “There’s relentless pressure to prove you’re ‘EA enough’—that your ideas are rigorous, your career or donation choices optimal, and your cause prioritisation well-reasoned. I’ve been told directly that this movement might not be a good fit for me, which felt like a polite way of saying I’m not competent enough. I’ve seen posts and comments getting downvoted significantly for slight mistakes. Even when influential EAs are being friendly or supportive, I sense they’re still evaluating my competency beneath the surface. The frequent discussions about performance reinforce this feeling that everyone is constantly being assessed. I know completely judgement-free environments don’t exist, but EA leans heavily towards being overly judgmental. This makes it hard for me to relax and be authentic in EA spaces.”
5.b. I feel accepted and can be authentic without constant evaluation.
Needs fulfilled: acceptance, authenticity
Associated emotions: confidence, security, calmness
Description: “I feel genuinely accepted in EA spaces without needing to constantly prove my worth or EA credentials. I know completely judgement-free environments don’t exist, but EA leans towards being appropriately judgmental on things that matter most, like honesty and respect. There’s encouragement to share ideas and ask questions in the EA Forum even if they might only get a few upvotes. People have made it clear that the movement benefits from diverse perspectives and that there’s no single way to be ‘EA enough.’ Even when interacting with influential EAs, the conversations feel genuine rather than like evaluations. Whilst people do discuss ideas and approaches critically, it feels like intellectual engagement rather than personal assessment. This creates an environment where I can contribute authentically without fear of being found inadequate.”
I’m capturing “vibes” here so this might be confusing...
If you generally feel a lot of happiness for other EAs’ advantages, then disagree-vote.
If you feel neutral or conflicted, I would abstain.
If you feel generally more envious, then agree-vote.
Was I able to clarify things?