In December 2022, Rethink Priorities, in collaboration with CEA, surveyed the EA community in order to gather “perspectives on how the FTX crisis has impacted the community’s views of the effective altruism movement, its organizations, and leaders.”
Our results found that the FTX crisis had decreased satisfaction with the EA community, and around half of respondents reported that the FTX crisis had given them concerns with EA meta organizations, the EA community and its norms, and the leaders of EA meta organizations.
Nevertheless, there were some encouraging results. The reduction in satisfaction with the community was significant, but small, and overall average community sentiment is still positive. In addition, respondents tended to agree that the EA community had responded well to the crisis, although roughly a third of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with this. Majorities of respondents reported continuing to trust EA organizations, though over 30% reported they had substantially lost trust in EA public figures or leadership.
Respondents were more split in their views about how the EA community should respond. Respondents leaned slightly towards agreeing that the EA community should spend significant time reflecting and responding to this crisis, at the cost of spending less time on our other priorities, but slightly towards disagreement that the EA community should look very different as a result of this crisis.
Respondents were asked about their current satisfaction with the EA community (after the FTX crisis) and to recall their satisfaction with the EA community at the start of November 2022, prior to the FTX crisis.
Satisfaction with the EA community appears to be half a point (0.54) lower post-FTX compared to pre-FTX.
Note that the median satisfaction scores are somewhat higher, but similarly showing a decrease (8 pre-FTX, 7 post-FTX).
Satisfaction over time
As the 2022 EA Survey was launched before the FTX crisis, we could assess how satisfaction with the EA community changed over time. We fit a generalized additive model in which we regressed the satisfaction ratings on the day the survey was taken.
These results show that satisfaction went down after the FTX crisis first started.
It should be noted however that this pattern of results could also be confounded by different groups of respondents taking the survey at different times. For example, we know that more engaged respondents tend to take the EAS earlier.
We therefore also looked at how the satisfaction changed over time for different engagement levels. This shows that the satisfaction levels went down over time, regardless of engagement level.
Respondents were asked whether the FTX crisis has given them concerns with:
- Effective Altruism Meta Organizations (e.g., Centre for Effective Altruism, Open Philanthropy, 80,000 hours, etc.)
- Leaders of Effective Altruism Meta Organizations (e.g., Centre for Effective Altruism, Open Philanthropy, 80,000 hours, etc.)
- The Effective Altruism Community & Norms
- Effective Altruism Principles or Philosophy
Majorities of respondents reported agreement that the crisis had given them concerns with EA meta organizations (58%), the EA community and its norms (55%), just under half reported it giving them concerns about the leaders of EA meta organizations (48%).
In contrast, only 25% agreed that the crisis had given them concerns about EA principles or philosophy, compared to 66% disagreeing. We think this suggests a somewhat reassuring picture where, though respondents may have concerns about the EA community in its current form, the FTX crisis has largely not caused respondents to become disillusioned with EA philosophy or principles.
Respondents were also asked to indicate their agreement with the following statements:
- I expect the FTX crisis will substantially harm my mental health in the long term.
- The FTX crisis has substantially harmed my mental health in the short term.
- I am less likely to associate myself with Effective Altruism publicly as a result of the FTX crisis.
- I want the EA community to look very different as a result of this crisis.
- The EA Community should spend significant time reflecting and responding to this crisis, at the cost of spending less time on our other priorities.
- The EA community has responded well to the FTX crisis so far.
Perhaps most reassuringly, more respondents agreed that the EA community had responded well to the crisis so far (47%) than disagreed (21%). That said, around a third of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement, perhaps due to ambivalence or uncertainty.
However, a plurality of respondents also agreed that the EA community should spend significant time reflecting and responding to this crisis, at the cost of spending less time on our other priorities (47%), compared to 37% disagreeing. Likewise, 39% agreed that they wanted the EA community to look very different as a result of this crisis, while 42% disagreed.
In addition, a sizable minority (38%) reported that they were less likely to associate with EA due to this crisis. But very small percentages agreed that the crisis would substantially harm their mental health in the short (13%) or long term (4%).
The results are shown below (percentages smaller than 5% are not labeled).
Trust in EA organizations
Respondents were asked how much they trust OP, 80K, and CEA. The results are presented below. Categories smaller than 2% are unlabelled.
Large majorities reported tending to trust each organization. However, levels of distrust were higher for CEA compared to 80K and OP. Comparing the average levels of trust between the organizations we see that trust in OP is highest, followed by 80K, followed by CEA.
Trust in EA public figures or leadership
Respondents were asked whether they had lost substantial trust in EA public figures or leadership (excluding FTX and Alameda employees). The majority of respondents said they had not, although a substantial portion of the respondents (31%) said that they did.
What actions would respondents like to see in the next few months?
Responses from respondents were classified into recurring themes. Each individual response could be coded as mentioning multiple themes at once.
Below we show a table with the counts for each category and the percentage of respondents who answered this question (n=411) who mentioned each type of action. It’s important to note that since this only shows whether respondents mentioned an action spontaneously as something they would like to see, the levels of support for some actions may be much higher.
Differences between groups
We also examined whether responses differed across different groups within the EA community.
Across different questions, we found some recurring patterns:
- We found a number of differences between men and non-men respondents, including non-men respondents expressing more concern, being more inclined to agree the community should look significantly different as a result of the crisis, and less likely to agree that the community had responded well to the crisis.
- A similar pattern was observed in terms of cause prioritization, with higher support for longtermism being associated with expressing less concern, being more likely to agree that EA responded well to the crisis and less likely to think the EA community should look very different. Longtermists also expressed higher trust for core EA meta orgs.
- The most highly engaged respondents were more likely to express concerns as a result of the crisis (except regarding EA philosophy). They were also more likely to report their mental health had been affected. And they reported lower trust in CEA (though higher trust in OP). However, they seemed slightly less likely to report that the EA community should look very different as a result of this crisis.
While we found a number of differences in satisfaction with EA (both pre- and post-FTX) across different groups-as we have in previous years-we did not find any significant interaction between these groups and change in satisfaction towards EA. For example, we found that men reported higher satisfaction with EA than non-men respondents, on average, but we observed a similar decrease in satisfaction across both groups post-FTX.
We observed differences depending on the extent to which the respondent prioritizes neartermist (global poverty and mental health) and longtermist causes (biosecurity, nuclear security, AI risk, existential risks). Those who prioritize longtermist causes more reported being less concerned across all concern questions while those who prioritize neartermist causes more reported being more concerned across all questions.
Additionally, we observed some diverging patterns involving EA engagement. More engaged respondents were less concerned about EA principles or philosophy, but more concerned about EA meta organizations and its leaders. No statistically significant differences were found regarding concerns about the EA community and norms.
There were several gender differences. Men were less concerned about EA principles or philosophy than women, non-binary respondents, and those who preferred to self-describe (combined into ‘Non-men’). Men were also less concerned about the EA community and norms. There were no significant gender differences for the other two concerns.
The respondent’s age was also found to relate to several of the concerns, although these relationships were very small. There was a small negative correlation with concerns about the EA community and norms (r = -.07) and leaders of EA meta organizations (r = -.06).
Finally, we also observed a difference between white respondents and non-white respondents on one of the items. Non-white respondents seem to be slightly more concerned about meta-organizations than white respondents are.
There were several different patterns depending on the cause prioritization of the respondent. We observed that the more the respondent prioritizes neartermist causes, the more they agreed that EA should reflect and respond to this crisis, that the EA community should look very different, and that they are less likely to associate with EA. They agreed less with EA responding well to the FTX crisis so far and the FTX crisis harming their mental health (but no relationship with mental health in the longterm).
Opposite patterns were observed when the respondent prioritizes longtermist causes more. The more they prioritize longtermist causes, the more they agreed that EA responded well to the crisis so far and that FTX harmed their mental health (short term). They agreed less with wanting the EA community to look very different and to being less likely to associate with EA. No relationship was found for FTX harming their mental health in the long term and that EA should reflect and respond to this crisis.
There were also a few differences between respondents with different engagement levels and some of the questions. More engaged respondents agreed that FTX harmed their mental health more (although agreement levels are still rather low overall). Less engaged respondents agreed more that they want the EA community to look very different. No other differences were observed.
There are also several gender differences. Men slightly agreed more that EA responded well to the crisis so far and agreed less that EA should reflect and respond to this crisis, that the EA community should look very different, and that the FTX crisis harmed their mental health. No differences were found for the association with EA question and long term mental health question.
Few differences were found between white and non-white respondents. Only one item showed a statistically significant difference. Non-white respondents agreed slightly more that the FTX crisis harmed their short term mental health.
Trust in organizations
Trust levels did not covary with the degree to which respondents prioritized neartermist causes. It did seem to covary with the degree to which they prioritized longtermist causes, with greater longterm causes prioritization being associated with more trust in each organization, although this was not statistically significant for CEA.
Regarding engagement levels, it seems that OP is trusted more by more engaged respondents, while for CEA and 80K it looks like the relationship is curvilinear. More engagement with the EA community is associated with more trust but highly engaged respondents seem to trust CEA and 80K less.
Men trust 80K and OP more than non-men. The difference was not statistically significant for CEA.
The annual EA Survey is a project of Rethink Priorities. The FTX Community Response questions were added in collaboration with the Centre for Effective Altruism. This post was written by David Moss and Willem Sleegers, with qualitative analysis contributed by Conor McGurk. Thanks to everyone who took and shared the survey.
The survey questions were added as an extra section to the 2022 EA Survey, with a separate survey link provided for respondents who had already completed the EA Survey. Both surveys were closed on 1st January 2023, so responses came in throughout a month-long period in December 2022 (the FTX news broke over a 10 day period in early November).
3567 respondents completed the EAS survey. Of these, 1012 EAS respondents were willing to answer the FTX section of questions and 300 respondents completed the separate FTX survey, resulting in an overall sample size of 1312 for the FTX-related questions.
Of course, it is an open question to what extent our sample reflects the community as a whole. It is plausible that people who were were more negatively affected by the FTX crisis might be more motivated to respond to the survey, which might skew responses in a negative direction, but it is also possible that respondents who were more negatively affected by the crisis might be less motivated to take the survey or more likely to leave the community entirely. As always, the EA Survey likely recruits disproportionately more highly engaged EAs and fewer less engaged EAs, so the overall results primarily reflect responses from people who are moderately or highly engaged in the EA community.
These categories were collapsed due to the very low number of respondents in the ‘non-binary’ and ‘prefer to self-describe’ categories. Although there may be differences between how these categories respond compared to ‘women’, and compared to each other, the small numbers would not allow a meaningful comparison. In addition, a number of EA diversity/community-building efforts have focused on ‘women and non-binary’ individuals as a category, so this seems like a meaningful practical category.
For simplicity, we label support for these, non-longtermist, causes “neartermist”, as we have in previous years. However, it’s worth noting explicitly that there is little reason to suppose that neartermism specifically, (e.g., attitudes or beliefs related to helping present vs. future generations or different time preference) explain support for these causes, rather than different epistemic beliefs (e.g., about appropriate kinds of evidence) or support for more traditional causes etc.
As with gender, and as in previous years, we combined respondents who selected a category other than ‘white’ into a single category due to the low number of respondents in each category.