In 2020 I was introduced to "microsolidarity", a set of ideas and methodologies on relating to others in groups. Over the last 6 months I've been experimenting with it in the form of "crewing".  This post is a casual outline for anyone interested of the steps I took organising crews of rats and EAs to meet weekly and:

  • help each other with life problems
  • nerd out over mutual obsessions, from wellbeing to emergence to ambition
  • just generally connect as human beings

I didn’t set out with a plan, I just did what felt right at the time so take this as less of a recipe and more of a retrospective from which you might want to pick and choose some stuff of your own to try!

What I did:

#1 Collect "free electrons": I'd keep an eye out for people I suspected might be interested in crewing and would be fun to hang out with. I found mine:

  • In "introductions" slack channels for events (be on the lookout for key interests like "community", "governance", "wellbeing" or "relating")
  • At virtual conferences for communities like effective altruism, complexity weekend, or radicalXchange
  • People I know in real life (though never more than 1 per crew)
  • People recommended by other free electrons

#2 Connect: I'd reach out to these people to see if they'd be interested in a 1-1 chat

  • Normally this would be a message like "Hey, if you were interested in jumping on a call sometime to connect I'd love to chat about X 😊"
  • I'd go on a walk, call them up at the agreed time, and just get to know them. The conversations might involve:
    • swapping backgrounds
    • discussing ambitions
    • ending up talking about shared topics of interest
  • Normally they'd also nerd out about something I think a lot about (community, utilitarianism, public goods, civics, etc) and the conversation would just spark up

#3 Mention Microsolidarity: Inevitably I'd start talking about theories of groups or experiences I'd had crewing, and if they showed an interest I'd mentioned there might be an opportunity to join a time bounded crew coming up. If they seemed keen I'd add them to my list. 

  • Note: I've noticed people are normally a lot more interested in joining something with a time limit, rather than an indefinite commitment.

#4: Form the crew: Once there were 3 free electrons who've expressed interest I thought would vibe I just dumped everyone in a group-chat and we found a time to meet weekly for 6 weeks. I would just go with combinations of people that "felt right", but two things I came to realise I was doing were:

  • Organising the group around a shared interest like "ai-safety", "wellbeing", or "civics". Basically people who get fired up over the same thing.
  • Trying to avoid an "EQ" vacuum in a crew. The more people who feel comfortable discussing the way something is making them feel right now, rather than what it makes them think of, the better. Cerebral groups aren't worse than "feely" groups, but I was gunning for the latter.

#5 Have an intro session: We'd get on a video chat and spend 90 minutes getting to know one another. Generally I found everyone gets so high on "new crew energy" that 🔥 topics of conversation will just spontaneously emerge as people introduce themselves. Though if the spirit of emergence doesn't fall on the group you may need to be willing to "stand up on stage" and act as a foil for the group, talking about something you're currently passionate about.

#6 Case clinics: Case clinics are the secret ingredient. Over the next 4 sessions each person would bring some problem they were working on to the group, and receive 90 minutes of undivided attention from their peers. I would ask around before the session to see who was interested in volunteering to bring a case. Examples of some of the topics we've had:

  • Social anxiety / feelings of inferiority
  • Break-ups
  • Fears around over-ambitious projects
  • Imposter syndrome
  • Feeling torn between rural or city living

The case clinic format involves:

  1. A 15-20 minutes monologue from the case giver about what they're going through with space for clarifying questions
  2. Each "coach" reflecting back what they heard and how it made them feel without giving advice or over-intellectualising
  3. The case bringer reflecting back what it was like to share and receive the reflections, and any further thoughts they have
  4. A generative dialogue in which advice is now allowed

Things I've been more intentional about over time that seem to affect how things feel:

  • Holding a spirit of curiosity during the case sharing portion (people really value being asked clarifying questions on their case)
  • Paying attention to my emotional rather than intellectual reaction to the bullet points of the case being brought, and then modeling reflecting my emotional reactions back during the reflection portion. When someone shares something vulnerable to a group of strangers their monkey brains wants most to know first how it's affected the receivers emotionally.

I've been a part of 10 or so case clinics at this point, and with each I have more and more respect for the format. Having 3 other people give *you* so much care, to help you through something you're struggling with has been a novel and profound experience for everyone I've seen receive it.

#7 A graceful landing: Ending things well can be hard to achieve, especially if there was no time limit set on the crew. In the crews I've been a part of I've seen three outcomes:

  1. The slow death: This happened to the first three crews I was a part of, and I now work to avoid it. People's emotional experience of being in the crew starts to change as the "new crew energy" wanes. You get "failures to launch" where people show up and it's not a bad time, but it doesn't leave them excited for the next meeting, so people drop off one by one till the organiser stops organising. If you've ever been in a DnD group that peters out like this you know it doesn't feel great. But it's also not the end of the world.
  2. The time bounded ending: The crew disbands with a good feeling after the planned 6 weeks. People post stuff related to the crew in the chat every once and a while and you have people to contact down the line who may be interested in forming a new crew.
  3. The perpetual hum: If the crew is "humming" with enough energy to keep it going without you acting as the organiser, then the 6 week format can morph into something a little more dynamic whilst avoiding the slow death. At this point ideas around "rotating leadership" have come up where others in the crew volunteer to be responsible for it, and I can relax with scheduling or feeling the need to watch out for any snarls or issues arising.

And there you have it, my limited experience with crews and crewing, such as it is. If you want to try something like this yourself and have any questions (or just want to nerd out over groups together) feel free to reach out on twitter (@FilmerJarred) 😊.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I really appreciate this post, especially the idea of time-limiting crews (with the option of extending if appreciated)! I’ve been workshopping similar ideas in anarchist spaces using their framework of pods & affinity groups.

I am not on Twitter but I’m curious how you developed the case format. Especially step 2:

Each "coach" reflecting back what they heard and how it made them feel without giving advice or over-intellectualising

This sounds almost-but-not-quite like a nonviolent communication method as I understand it. What do responses sound like in this step? And more generally, do you know what motivates the case clinic format (the presencing institute link doesn’t clarify)?

Thank you for the kind words 😊

re developing the case clinic format we use, I was lucky enough to receive a case clinic at a microsolidarity workshop, so I've basically just been trying to re-create the experience I had for others. Beyond that it's just been following the PDF / trial and error 😅

You're right to home in on step 2, I think it's the most powerful / important part of the process.

A typical response might be something like "when you opened saying X, I felt strong empathy for you, because I've gone through something similar. And I really liked the word you used to describe it, because I've never had a term for that feeling before. And when you mentioned your family did X I felt really angry and defensive for you, that sounded really horrible. And now I feel a lot of gratitude that you shared what you did, because I know how vulnerable that can be." and then they might move into sharing images or metaphors that came to them to help contextualise / understand the experience. I've found the words aren't as important as embodying and displaying the emotions I was feeling, and opening up so the case bringer can see how it's affected me.

What motivates this reflection step is what I think what motivates the case clinic format generally, which is in essence to give people the experience of communicating something going on with them that they can't communicate elsewhere. 

Everyone experiences a big multi-faceted emotional issue at some stage in life, and many of us are  working through at least one at any point in time. Most people find conversation useful to bring all the relevant emotions and thoughts into conciousness at once, but struggle to find spaces where they can do this because:

a. They feel they don't have the licence to talk to peers for 20 minutes straight about themselves

b. The listeners pay inadequete attention (not holding the entire context in their head, just the past couple sentances)

c. The listeners feel uncomfortable holding the problem and try to give advice to resolve that tension

d. The listener did understand, but fails to appreciate the speaker requires active confirmation that they were understood, and to know how they've affected the listener.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
And other ways to make event content more valuable.   I organise and attend a lot of conferences, so the below is correct and need not be caveated based on my experience, but I could be missing some angles here. Also on my substack. When you imagine a session at an event going wrong, you’re probably thinking of the hapless, unlucky speaker. Maybe their slides broke, they forgot their lines, or they tripped on a cable and took the whole stage backdrop down. This happens sometimes, but event organizers usually remember to invest the effort required to prevent this from happening (e.g., checking that the slides work, not leaving cables lying on the stage). But there’s another big way that sessions go wrong that is sorely neglected: wasting everyone’s time, often without people noticing. Let’s give talks a break. They often suck, but event organizers are mostly doing the right things to make them not suck. I’m going to pick on two event formats that (often) suck, why they suck, and how to run more useful content instead. Panels Panels. (very often). suck. Reid Hoffman (and others) have already explained why, but this message has not yet reached a wide enough audience: Because panelists know they'll only have limited time to speak, they tend to focus on clear and simple messages that will resonate with the broadest number of people. The result is that you get one person giving you an overly simplistic take on the subject at hand. And then the process repeats itself multiple times! Instead of going deeper or providing more nuance, the panel format ensures shallowness. Even worse, this shallow discourse manifests as polite groupthink. After all, panelists attend conferences for the same reasons that attendees do – they want to make connections and build relationships. So panels end up heavy on positivity and agreement, and light on the sort of discourse which, through contrasting opinions and debate, could potentially be more illuminating. The worst form of shal