I was positively surprised to find out that I was able to edit my username in the forum to be my full name. As I was previously under the impression that this was impossible, I wanted to share this and encourage users to consider switching to their full names.

The suggestion in the how-to-guide is:

In general, we think that real names are good for community bonding, and we encourage you to use yours. But it's not required.

I think this is a good policy. I can imagine cases where using a pseudonym might make it easier to communicate openly without people outside the community being able to connect the post to the author. For most posters, especially the frequent posters, it seems relatively easy to find out who the author is. After meeting several users at EAGs I'm building up a mental database where I keep track of real names (used on Swapcard and emails), forum user names, and sometimes nicknames and Twitter handles. This seems unnecessary.

Connecting names you saw in comments and posts to name tags at conferences makes it easier for people new to the community to start conversations based on what you read. It's also easier when you hear others refer to people by their real name.

In a growing community that aspires to be welcoming, I think it's a good norm to make it easy for people to learn about the engaged participants. In addition to using the real name, I would also like to encourage adding a description to the profile. This can include the current organisation, group, university, cause area or GWWC membership. Similar to Swapcard at the EAG conferences, it helps to understand better where someone is coming from or is currently active.

A counter-argument might be that readers might defer too much to people with impressive affiliations instead of focussing on the content. I would agree with that. However, currently, many pseudonyms seem to be known to engaged members, which leads to different levels of knowledge.

Looking at the posts with the highest karma it's nice to see many using real names already and I hope to see more in future.

Comments30


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'd add that as a person who has done recruiting for EA orgs, I like to try to hire from talented-seeming EA forum posters and it is a lot easier to try to recruit someone when their full name is accessible from their username or bio.

did you ever search the forum for negative indicators of whether someone is unfit?

As someone who works in your org, I'm confused about how this works in practice fwiw. As far as I understand it:

  •  in the main hiring rounds, we have application blinding in approximately all rounds except the interview stage, so having an impressive EA Forum presence, real-name or otherwise, shouldn't be too applicable.
    • sometimes we allow people who either perform well in past hiring rounds, or we are otherwise very confident in their competence, to skip certain stages, but I'm not sure how much real vs  pseudonym EA Forum acc will be relevant here. 
  • Occasionally we try to recruit people off-cycle, but to the best of my knowledge a) this is rarely due to EAF contributions (compared to other contributions) and b) it's not hard to just ping an username expressing interest. EAF has a messaging system!
  • I'm not aware of many (any?) research hires that were actually made off-cycle.

The main thing would be reaching out to invite people to apply to our hiring rounds.

I do concede we could invite anonymous people to apply though.

You're right that we don't do much off-cycle recruiting.

I do concede we could invite anonymous people to apply though.

I've done this before fwiw.

Can't people just link to their EA Forum profile, just like linking to their GitHub profile?

I think you mean "your first name" or something like that, rather than necessarily "your full name"? 

My suggested default would be to write your full real name in your bio, fill in other info about you in your bio, and make your Forum name sufficiently related to your real name that people who at one point learned the connection will easily remember it. (As I've done.) 

If one does that, then also making one's Forum name their full real name seems to add little value and presumably adds some risk to their 'real life' reputation if they want to later pursue a policy/political career or something, since a lot of discussion on the Forum would look pretty weird to a lot of people. (Though I'm not sure how large that risk really is, or how much of it occurs anyway just via the sort of approach I've taken where my name is in my bio.)

My policy on this, to the extent I have one, is a sort of soft lockdown: I don't mind sharing enough personal info on here that an EA who knows me in real life could figure out my identity, but I need to always have at least plausible deniability in the face of any malicious actor. 

As far as the risks in policy careers, I think the risk is very high for appointed jobs and real but lower for elected ones. Politicians are more risk averse than voters, and when they can pick from a pool of 100, they'll look for any reason to turn you down. When the voters have to pick one of two or a small handful of candidates, they gotta make a decision, by election day, and maybe they don't care so much about a few mildly controversial statements.  

If EA-aligned employers are using ppl saying smart stuff on here as a basis for hiring, but only if they have a real name account, I suggest they simply stop arbitrarily eliminating a major portion of their potential talent pool. Pretty easy to reach out to someone and ask for their identity if u are interested in hiring them. 

Hugely seconded. When I was signing up for an account, I considered going anonymous (what if I want to discuss controversial things!), but I figured the upside career & social potential of using my real name outweighed the downside risk that cancel culture might someday come for Effective Altruism. Since then, my decision has been totally vindicated -- numerous people have reached out to me for conversations about EA stuff, or even ask if I'd like to apply for a job at their EA org. I feel like this would have happened less if I wasn't using my real name, since people wouldn't be able to take the intermediate getting-to-know-me step of googling for my linkedin, visiting https://jacksonw.xyz/, or etc. That intermediate step of internet research probably makes people more comfortable reaching out and making a connection.

Nah, I wanna be able to speak freely without it affecting my job. 

I changed my display name as a result of this post, thanks!

Me too!

Just throwing another comment here for support, read and changed.

Thanks for the post! We do encourage people to use their real names as their usernames.

Our current policy is that each user can change their own username once[1] - you can do this by going to the Edit Account page and updating your "Display Name".

After that, further changes to your username need to be done by moderators. Please contact us to ask to change your username. :)

  1. ^

    Unfortunately we had a bug that took this one chance away for many users. This should be fixed for new accounts going forward, but if you don't see this option in your Edit Account page, then please reach out to us and we will change your username for you.

I changed my username following the advice of Edo Arad. Trust him, he's the founder of Naming What We Can!

I'd be interested to hear if he has something more to say on top of the reasoning here. I was in discussion with a group of EA/rationalists recently, and they were all very opposed to the idea which I tried to support with the arguments here. I think I came out still confident it is the right choice for me, but am unsure if I'm confident enough to be prescriptive about it for others. 

It would probably help if you'd list out the reasoning (?)

 

Meta: Do you think this is a situation that one side is correct and the other side is wrong and you better try together to find the "truth"?

Yeah so a big part of it is the simple and straightforward "I don't want a potential employer to be able to assess what I've said all over the forum". 

The second part was more interesting to me, because there was also this argument that a norm of anonymity has some strong benefits, like people feeling able to truly express how they feel on a topic. I think this connects to the sort of "always be polite" heuristic, where it seems like generally speaking the world could use more straightforward, honest responses, and that anonymity is likely to increase this sort of response and is thus good.

I threw out what I felt to be the common replies to this, that you probably shouldn't be making a comment if it's to the point that a potential future employer would downrate your quality based on reading it, that anonymity gives free reign to people being inconsiderate to a trollish level sometimes that is the opposite of productively honest, that connections to real people seem important and that using real names seems like it would foster that. But alas, it was all to no avail, the room was still overwhelmingly pro anonymity in the case of the forum (they conceded that smaller virtual communities could probably drop the anonymity as it becomes somewhat useless as you get to know all the specific people well). 

On the meta note, I think this is a situation where I feel like for around maybe 99% of people on the forum there is probably a generally better option they could opt for that would trend towards a healthier community. But I'm also very generally against the idea of lots of things just being up to individual circumstance,  so this is a rather unsurprising response given my outside thoughts. What do you think though?

Ah

I agree with the tradeoff of [feeling comfortable to post stuff] vs [being closer to others with their name].

For myself, I try to push myself slowly towards being "open", but I don't want to override my own comfort zone to strongly (also because I know I have 1000 things to fix and I can't work on them all at once).

I also wouldn't want to push others, for similar reasons.

I do endorse what Edo did for me - a small nudge which was no pressure but was enough to get me to think about the question.

I’ve reversed an earlier decision and have settled on using my real name. Wish me luck!

I'm sure you've all seen the EA hub post that was put up about a month ago.  But it's worth re-stating that it's hard to find someone specific in EA sometimes. 

I sometimes use the forum when I'm trying to get in contact with people, primarily by searching their name! 

I'd add that having people use their real names adds to the forum looking like a platform for professional discussion, and adds transparency - both of which are important because of the impact and reach we wish to eventually achieve as a movement.

While pseudonyms have some use cases - the main one I can think of, is when one may fear retaliation for reporting bad behaviour of another EA or organisation - they should indeed be otherwise extremely discouraged.

Edit: ok, this paragraph was in hindsight somewhat exaggerated, and I can think of a few use cases that may be more common. But I still think anyone using a pseudonym should at least have a good reason in mind.

"Extremely discouraged" seems a bit dramatic. Some of us would rather not have our heavy EA involvement be the first thing that shows up when people Google us.

I don't personally think that's a good reason to not use one's name, but I'll concede my phrasing was indeed a bit too dramatic. It's probably because my experience on the forum is that it's really frustrating not being able to connect other commenters to a human identity.

fair enough 

Have Fun

FYI you can contact the EA Forum team to get your profile hidden from search engines (see here).

I also thought this was impossible, so ended up creating a new account with my name as my username. In fact even now I can't see how to do it, I don't see an option in either my profile or account settings?

Thanks for asking! It sounds like you were affected by our bug, so please contact us and we will update your username for you.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not