EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Stephen Robcraft15
1
0

I'd be very interested in hearing from those who responded to 10 - Checks and balances, as part of the work I do with the EA Good Governance Project. We've focused entirely on formal governance of EA organisations (through Boards of Trustees/Directors) but I have been thinking recently about how our work might consider a model of governance that includes:

  1. Formal governance
    1. Providing oversight through constituted bodies with decision-making authority (like Boards of Trustees/Directors)
    2. Requiring regulatory compliance
  2. Community governance
    1. Setting norms/expectations
    2. Holding individuals and organisations to account
  3. Funder/Market governance
    1. Allocating resources (through cause prioritisation and assessing individual funding bids)
    2. Performance monitoring (by requiring quarterly reviews, making funding conditional etc)

Forgive me, it's a bit rough as I planned to post something in the next week or two. This seemed like a good opportunity to start discussion though! My sense (through speaking to founders, exec staff and board members of EA orgs over the past few months; seeing the results of this survey) is something like: 

EA does 1b, 2a and 3a really well.

EA orgs often don't do 1a at all (not required when fiscally sponsored, or for certain types of entity), or that well (board members recruited from within closed networks, also no-one really does boards well). 

People are worried about 2b (more so than I expected, but about as much as I am!).

3b is done less than in traditional non-profits - a high-trust culture and belief that 2a and 3a are enough means this kind of thing is less relied upon. 

I worry that this is a recipe for not good things. I don't worry so much about power abuse (I also trust in 2a!) but do think a thoughtful/maturing community has some gaps to fill in how it/its orgs are governed.
 

Reply
4
calebp
I'd be curious to see a specific fictional story of failure that you think is: * realistic (e.g. you'd be willing to bet at unfavourable odds that something similar has happened in the last year) * seems very bad (e.g. worth say 25%+ of the org's budget to fix) * is handled well at more mature charities with better governance * stems from things like 2b and 3b I'm struggling to come up with examples that I find compelling, but I'm sure you've thought about this a lot more than I have.
5
Stephen Robcraft
A couple come to mind but, if you'll allow it, I would first respond to your prompt(s) with: * I don't think there are loads of examples of organisations with better governance (boards are weird, after all) overall - I'd argue that EA norms and practices lead to better governance, relative to traditional nonprofits, in some respects and worse in others. Nonprofits could generally do governance better. * I'm not sure it makes sense to isolate 2b and 3b here - 1a can also play a role in mitigating failure (and some combination of all three might be optimal) The two stories that come to mind both seem realistic to me (I'd take the bet these have happened recently) but might not meet your bar for 'very bad'. However, I'd argue we can set the bar a bit higher (lower? depends how you look at it....) and aim for governance that mitigates against more mundane risks, providing the trade-off makes sense. I think it does. Story 1 - A new-ish EA project/org has received 12 months of funding to do [something]. At the end of the 12 months, [something] has not been achieved but the money has been spent. In this story, the funder has accepted that they are making a bet, that there's some level of experimentation going on, that there are lots of uncertainties and assumptions etc. However, in this story, it was perfectly possible for [something] to be delivered, or for some equally impactful [something else] to be identified and delivered. Neither happened, but the team has spent most, if not all, of its funding and has just failed to deliver. They might have a compelling story about what they'll do next year and get more funding, they might not.  (1a) With a well-run Board of Trustees (made up of impartial, experienced, connected and credentialed people) overseeing the work of the less experienced project team and holding them to account, I think it's reasonable to imagine the team gets clearer, quicker about their objectives and how to deliver on these; more effectively moni
calebp7
0
0

Thanks, this is a great response. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

I'm not sure it makes sense to isolate 2b and 3b here - 1a can also play a role in mitigating failure (and some combination of all three might be optimal).

I just isolated these because I thought that you were most interested in EA orgs improving on 2b/3b, but noted.

Reply
See in context
by Yi-Yang
2 min read14 answers 9

117

Opportunities to take actionCommunityBuilding effective altruismSurveysCriticism of the effective altruism communityEffective Altruism Infrastructure FundThreads
Frontpage

Elitism in EA sparks strong emotions in people, and I worry that we are talking past each other. Rather than asking whether EA "is elitist" (which means different things to different people), this survey focuses on specific experiences and feelings to get to the real substance of the matter.

This takes 5-30 minutes and your perspective matters. Feel free to skip the detailed descriptions if you want to save time. The survey covers thirteen key areas with contrasting viewpoints. 

Here’s a list of actions you can take if you want to help:

  1. Click the “Agree” or “Disagree” button (NOT the karma arrows) on perspectives that resonate (or don’t) with your experience.
    1. To be clear:
      1. “Agree” if you find the perspective more resonant than not.
      2. “Disagree” if you find the perspective more dissonant than not.
      3. If you're unsure, don't click either button.
      4. Feel free to agree or disagree with one, both, or neither.
      5. Use the karma arrows only to upvote/downvote this entire post based on whether you think more/less Forum users should see it.
    2. Please do NOT agree/disagree or change your agree/disagree votes after June 30th, 2025.
  2. Feel free to add missing perspectives! And agree/disagree with those too.
    1. If you’d like to be anonymous, please DM me.
  3. If you think this survey is valuable, please share this with your friends in the EA movement who may have thoughts/feelings about elitism. 

Some additional thoughts that might helpful (feel free to skip):

  1. Even if you feel like an “elite” in the EA movement, please still participate! You might still find some of the perspectives below resonant or dissonant.
  2. If a perspective resonates with you even if you find it irrational, please still agree-vote it. I’m trying to capture the “vibes”, not necessarily what participants’ most accurate beliefs are.
  3. I worry that participants might dramatically change things about themselves based on other participants’ answers. Specifically, I would like people not to over-update their memories, or over-adjust their behaviour in either direction. The survey results are unlikely representative of the EA movement, and it’s likely to select for the following groups:
    1. People with strong feelings (especially negative ones) about elitism
    2. More active EA Forum users
  4. Furthermore, I’m using the EA Forum’s question post as an experimental survey. I expect many things to go wrong.
  5. Evaluations and comparisons of people can elicit strong feelings and I worry that participants might develop an “us vs them” dynamic. So, please remember to embody a scout mindset.
  6. I suspect this survey has a negative lean towards elitism. If some of my writings seem like I’m ascribing a negative value judgement to elitism or prescribing an intervention to reduce elitism, they’re not. I’m mostly trying to get a sense of how people feel about elitism.

This investigation is supported by the EA Infrastructure Fund.

The preview image is from Nikita Vasilevskiy.

117

2
0

Reactions

2
0
New Answer
New Comment

14 Answers sorted by
Top

Yi-Yang3
106
25

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... (read more)

Reply
3
Xylix
I don't know if this will be a useful comment but putting it here anyway. Personally, and most other people who feel like they are being judged too much or have too much performance pressure in EA, often do it themselves. I think there is a causation in how EA material and dynamics can facilitate people being more self-critical than is healthy, and to me that seems like a much more common problem than being judged by other EAs. (Didn't notice a survey question that would measure the thing I'm trying to point at here.)
Yi-Yang0
52
53

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. Peop... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang2
69
94

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 s... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang0
72
51

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 rath... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

2. Selection processes

Yi-Yang1
40
82

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 ... (read more)

Reply
Julia_Wise🔸26
17
0
1

I think there's an important difference between "have I ever seen this in the history of any EA org" and "do I think it's a current trend / do I think it happens more in EA than other spaces." The title points to the first, and I think what's meant is the second.

Reply
5
Yi-Yang
Thanks, you're right. I'm gesturing at the later. 
5
Davidmanheim
Fit is an important aspect of hiring! (As are diversity, etc.) Picking the person who gets the highest score on the trial, while ignoring how they fit with the team, is a huge problem. The description seems fine, but the title seems to get this wrong by referencing fit instead of nepotism or similar.
Yi-Yang1
107
10

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 backgr... (read more)

Reply
3
Ian Turner
If I have not really seen any hiring practices at all, or not seen them recently, should I abstain?
1
Yi-Yang
That sounds right!

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

3. Social dynamics

mjkerrison🔸️7
1
0

I think this dichotomy is interesting: IMO "accountability" and "healthiness" are different dimensions. I'm voting 'no' on 'protecting influential members from accountability', but abstaining from 'encouraging healthy accountability', because while there is quite a bit of that (again IMO), there's also unhealthy accountability at times, which (once again IMO) contributes to sometimes sparse details being published.

Reply
Yi-Yang1
73
49

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 t... (read more)

Reply
3
Davidmanheim
The description is about punishment for dissent from non-influential EAs, but the title is about influential members. (And I'd vote differently depending on which is intended.)
Yi-Yang1
77
34

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 regula... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
1
0

4. Competition vs. collaboration

Yi-Yang2
43
75

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 t... (read more)

Reply
8
Joseph
This feels very salient to me. I've seen EA job applications ask about how much money I donate, and that feels like evaluating people on outcomes rather than on inputs. I've definitly noticed the status/recognition given to people that are able to donate. Conversely, I've definitly chosen to not pursue opportunities that advertise low payment; those have felt vaguely similar to the culture of unpaid (or poorly paid) internships in publishing: often only people who have other sources of money or similar safety nets are able to pursue them.
2
Ian Turner
I mean, I don't think there is anyone (or hardly anyone) who is applying to EA jobs and who is not rich by global standards. What do you have in mind when you're thinking of those who are not "able to donate"? Unless by "EA job applications" you're referring to like "GiveDirectly Field Officer" or something, in which case I agree, that would be a weird question to ask (but, I feel, still not completely unreasonable?).
8
AnonymousTurtle
While both are rich by global standards, someone in the top 10% ($20k/year) and someone in the top 1% (>$60k/year) have very different abilities to donate. This becomes even more noticeable as relatively less rich people also often have to support their families, pay off debts, and can't rely on a future inheritance. ETA: One org used to ask something like: "if you earned $50k, how much would you donate and why?" which imho mitigates this (although not perfectly)
2
Ian Turner
I mean, I agree with this, but also, I was able to donate 10% after tax when I was making around $14k/year working minimum wage. At the time I was living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and shared a not-great apartment with 2 other people, though I did have my own bedroom. Asking the question, "how much money did you donate", with no room for context, doesn't seem like a great interview question to me — I would think it would be much more interesting to ask, "how do you decide how much to donate" or similar. My main disagreement, though, is with the idea that there are very many people applying to rich-country white-collar jobs who are simply not "able to donate".
4
Joseph
I was thinking about people who don't have any income, or who have significant uncertainty/stability in their futures, or who have large financial burdens/commitments. More broadly, if you want to read more of my thoughts on this topic, I've made a few comments over the years about living in high cost of living areas, about general feelings of financial insecurity/instability, and about not pledging to donate. Those might provide a bit more insight into my throught and perspectives.
7
Ian Turner
If we're talking about people who literally have no income... then it does seem odd to ask how much they are donating. Though I also think that if the question were asked, it would be an okay answer to say, "I'm not donating right now because I don't have any income." Do you disagree? I would also ask, are there very many such people applying to EA jobs? How do they feed, clothe, and shelter themselves? As for HCOL... As I wrote in a cousin comment to this one, I was able to donate 10% after tax while working minimum wage in a an HCOL area and TBH I don't have a ton of sympathy for those who say that they can't afford to do so today. For example, if we look at the SF Bay Area (the most expensive metro area in the country), the total cost of living is only about 15% less than the US average. The California minimum wage is $16.50/hour, which is about $28,000 after tax, or about $24,000 adjusted for cost of living. That is still richer than 92% of the people in the world! As for feelings of financial insecurity/instability... I think someone in the above situation is rich enough to be able to both save for the future and give to charity. Do you disagree? Just to be clear, I am certainly not arguing that there are no people in the United States that aren't rich enough to donate to charity. Those with expensive or debilitating medical issues, for example, might not be able to make enough money to donate. And those with recent criminal records, or crushing debt relative to income, also might not be able to — though this category seems  like mostly a consequence of past decisions? And anyway, I would ask again, are there so many people like this applying to EA jobs?
Yi-Yang0
126
5

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, ... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

6. Competency and accomplishments

Yi-Yang2
37
84

6.a. I feel invisible and inadequate in EA.

Needs not fulfilled: equality, to be seen, to matter, belongingness

Associated emotions: envy, shame, anger

Description: “I wish I was smarter, more competent, more accomplished, more... It's not fair. Many EAs are from competitive universities or have accomplished impressive feats. They get invited to exclusive coworking spaces and retreats. They get grants easily or are in positions to give out grants to others. They get 100+ karma points on the EA Forum whilst I struggle to contribute meaningfully to discussions.... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang0
58
46

6.b. I feel valued and capable within EA regardless of my background.

Needs fulfilled: equality, to be seen, to matter, belongingness

Associated emotions: satisfaction, confidence, gratefulness

Description: "I'm grateful for how EA has welcomed me and valued my contributions, even though I don't have an impressive background. Whilst many EAs are highly accomplished, I've found that the community is generally humble and appreciates diverse forms of contribution. I received funding/opportunities based purely on the merit of my proposal and accomplishments. My p... (read more)

Reply
5
Ian Turner
Should those with impressive backgrounds click "Disagree" here? (I ask this without attempting to imply anything about whether or not my own background counts as "impressive").
2
Robi Rahman
If you're someone with an impressive background, you can answer this by asking yourself if you feel that you would be valued even without that background. Using myself as an example, I... 1. went to a not so well-known public college 2. worked an unimpressive job 3. started participating in EA 4. quit the unimpressive job, studied at fancy university 5. worked at high-status ingroup organizations 6. posted on the forum and got upvotes Was I warmly accepted into EA back when my resume was much weaker than it is now? Do I think I would have gotten the same upvotes if I had posted anonymously? Yes and yes. So on the question of whether I'm valued within EA regardless of my background, I voted agree.
1
Yi-Yang
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. 

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

7. Geographic and financial advantages

Yi-Yang2
71
33

7.b. I'm content with my economic and geographic circumstances.

Needs fulfilled: equality, inclusion, fairness

Associated emotions: contentment, happiness, hope

Description: "I feel content with my own economic and geographic circumstances and don't find myself envious of EAs who have greater wealth or live in countries with better infrastructure and governance. I'm grateful that EA creates opportunities for meaningful contribution regardless of location or wealth. I've benefited enormously from mentorship by more established EAs who've generously shared thei... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang0
54
50

7.a. I envy other EAs' economic and geographic advantages.

Needs not fulfilled: equality

Associated emotions: envy, anger

Description: “I’d like to be as rich as some EA folks, or migrate to a high-income country with more freedom, better infrastructure, and more effective governance. They could afford to live in the most expensive locations in the world, where most of the most important EA events and opportunities happen. It’s nice to not deal with visa, travel, or timezone issues. They worry less about electrical outages or being oppressed. I  don't kn... (read more)

Reply
7
Ian Turner
How should those vote who are already living in a high-income country with freedom, good infrastructure, and effective governance? (I ask this without attempting to imply anything about precisely which countries qualify).
1
Yi-Yang
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. 
3
Robi Rahman
This doesn't answer the question for people who live in high-income countries and don't feel envy. Should they abstain? Should they answer about whether they would envy someone in their own position if they were less advantaged?
3
Yi-Yang
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? 

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

8. Personal treatment by influential EAs

Yi-Yang1
21
97

8.a. I was treated with disrespect and indignity by influential EAs.

Needs not fulfilled: respect

Associated emotions: anger

Description: “People with significant power within EA have disrespected me in our interactions. They often showed up late to our meetings with little or no communication. They’ve used negative labels like ‘stupid’ or ‘incompetent’ to describe me. They've ignored my messages or emails without explanation despite our ongoing relationship. They’ve violated or frequently pushed the limits of my boundaries, like insisting on discussing topics I said I wasn't comfortable with. I feel indignant at being treated this way.”

Reply
Yi-Yang1
103
6

8.b. I was treated with respect and dignity by influential EAs.

Needs fulfilled: respect

Associated emotions: security, calmness

Description: "People with significant power within EA have consistently treated me with respect and professionalism in our interactions. They reliably show up on time to our meetings and communicate promptly if they need to reschedule. I've never been called derogatory names or had my competence dismissed. They respond to my messages and emails in a timely manner, maintaining the courtesy you'd expect in any professional relationshi... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

9. Ethical leadership vs. power abuse

Yi-Yang1
32
63

9.a. I've witnessed influential EAs manipulate information and coerce individuals.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, respect, justice

Associated emotions: fear, shame, anger

Description: "I believe influential EAs have manipulated and coerced both individuals and the broader movement in worrying ways. I've witnessed lies told to me and the community, and been threatened into costly actions. They deliberately withhold information or share it selectively to benefit their positions. Critical decisions that affect the entire movement are made behind closed do... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang1
84
8

9.b. I've witnessed influential EAs demonstrate transparency and ethical leadership.

Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, respect, justice

Associated emotions: trust, security, calmness

Description: "I've consistently observed influential EAs demonstrating genuine transparency and ethical leadership in their interactions with individuals and the broader movement. They've been honest and forthcoming in their communications with me and the community, even when it might be inconvenient or reflect poorly on them. I've never experienced threats from EA leaders—when d... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

10. Checks and balances

Yi-Yang2
86
24

10.a. I'm worried about EA's lack of governance safeguards against power abuse.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: worry

Description: "I'm worried that EA lacks adequate formal check-and-balances against influential members who might abuse their power. There's limited transparency about how major decisions are made, how resources are allocated, or what oversight mechanisms exist. The EA Forum's karma system can amplify certain voices in ways that affect perceived legitimacy and influence over community direction. I worry ... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang1
8
84

10.b. I'm confident EA has effective governance safeguards and oversight against power abuse.

Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: trust, security, calmness

Description: "I'm confident that EA has developed robust governance safeguards and oversight mechanisms that protect against abuse of power by influential members. Whilst EA involves some centralisation around key organisations and individuals, I've observed transparent decision-making processes and effective accountability measures. The EA Forum provides an excellent platf... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

11. Fair funding vs. insider dealing

Yi-Yang1
31
44

11.a. I've observed cronyism in EA funding decisions that benefits insiders.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice

Associated emotions: worry, anger

Description: "I've observed concerning patterns where influential EAs have diverted funding from more deserving recipients to themselves or their close associates in ways that seem ethically questionable, even if technically legal. Even when these arrangements follow proper procedures on paper, they violate the spirit of merit-based allocation that EA claims to uphold. I worry that this undermines trust i... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang1
43
17

11.b. I've observed fair and merit-based EA funding decisions with strong oversight.

Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice

Associated emotions: confidence, trust, calmness

Description: "I've consistently observed EA funding decisions that prioritise merit and impact over personal connections or insider status. When conflicts of interest do exist, they're transparently disclosed and properly managed through recusal processes or independent review panels. I've seen funding opportunities designed with clear, objective criteria that focus on potential impact ... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

12. Concentration of resources and influence

Yi-Yang1
104
15

12.a. I'm worried about how concentrated resources and influence are in EA.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: worry, anger

Description: "I'm deeply concerned about how resources and influence are concentrated among a small minority within EA, which creates dangerous vulnerabilities. Open Philanthropy dominates EA funding by an enormous margin, and a few key individuals hold disproportionate sway over research directions and community standards. When so much power rests with so few people, it becomes much easier for them... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang1
11
85

12.b. I'm happy with how concentrated resources and influence are in EA.

Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: security, confidence, calmness

Description: “I'm reassured by how EA has concentrated resources and influence among highly capable individuals and organisations. When power rests with competent people, it enables swift, well-informed responses that distributed systems simply couldn't achieve. The funding landscape benefits from having experienced professionals who understand complex cause areas and can make sophisticat... (read more)

Reply

Yi-Yang

1
0
0

13. Should the best people be in charge?

Yi-Yang1
22
64

13.a. I think EAs' belief in concentrating power among the competent is misguided.

Needs not fulfilled: effectiveness

Associated emotions: worry

Description: "I'm concerned about some EAs’ belief that influence and resources should be concentrated among a minority of highly competent and accomplished individuals. Even if EA organisations and programmes could perfectly identify the right people, I think this centralised approach is fundamentally flawed. Highly competent people are still subject to self-interest and self-delusion that can lead to poor decisions... (read more)

Reply
Yi-Yang1
66
17

13.b. I think EAs' belief in concentrating power among the competent is wise.

Needs fulfilled: effectiveness

Associated emotions: confidence, trust

Description: "I strongly support some EAs’ belief that influence and resources should be concentrated among a minority of highly competent and accomplished individuals. I'm not advocating that an extreme minority has total control over the movement. But a more centralised approach is far more effective than distributing influence and resources broadly among all EA practitioners. Whilst highly competent people are ... (read more)

Reply

Kamil Hasenfeller (K-1000)

-4
1
5

Out of EA's problems, elitism is the smallest. 

Comments9
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Jacob Watts🔸17
0
0

I appreciate this survey and I found many of your questions to be charming probes. I would like to register that I object to the "is elitism good actually?" framing here. There is a very common way to define the term "elitism" that is just straightforwardly negative. Like, "elitism" implies classist, inegalitarian stuff that goes beyond just using it as an edgelord libertarian way of saying "meritocracy".

I think there is a lot of conceptual tension between EA as a literal mass movement and EA as an usually talent dense clique / professional network. Probably there is room in the world for both high skill professional networks and broad ethical movements, but y'know ... 

Reply
Stephen Robcraft15
1
0

I'd be very interested in hearing from those who responded to 10 - Checks and balances, as part of the work I do with the EA Good Governance Project. We've focused entirely on formal governance of EA organisations (through Boards of Trustees/Directors) but I have been thinking recently about how our work might consider a model of governance that includes:

  1. Formal governance
    1. Providing oversight through constituted bodies with decision-making authority (like Boards of Trustees/Directors)
    2. Requiring regulatory compliance
  2. Community governance
    1. Setting norms/expectations
    2. Holding individuals and organisations to account
  3. Funder/Market governance
    1. Allocating resources (through cause prioritisation and assessing individual funding bids)
    2. Performance monitoring (by requiring quarterly reviews, making funding conditional etc)

Forgive me, it's a bit rough as I planned to post something in the next week or two. This seemed like a good opportunity to start discussion though! My sense (through speaking to founders, exec staff and board members of EA orgs over the past few months; seeing the results of this survey) is something like: 

EA does 1b, 2a and 3a really well.

EA orgs often don't do 1a at all (not required when fiscally sponsored, or for certain types of entity), or that well (board members recruited from within closed networks, also no-one really does boards well). 

People are worried about 2b (more so than I expected, but about as much as I am!).

3b is done less than in traditional non-profits - a high-trust culture and belief that 2a and 3a are enough means this kind of thing is less relied upon. 

I worry that this is a recipe for not good things. I don't worry so much about power abuse (I also trust in 2a!) but do think a thoughtful/maturing community has some gaps to fill in how it/its orgs are governed.
 

Reply
calebp4
0
0

I'd be curious to see a specific fictional story of failure that you think is:
* realistic (e.g. you'd be willing to bet at unfavourable odds that something similar has happened in the last year)
* seems very bad (e.g. worth say 25%+ of the org's budget to fix)
* is handled well at more mature charities with better governance
* stems from things like 2b and 3b

I'm struggling to come up with examples that I find compelling, but I'm sure you've thought about this a lot more than I have.

Reply
Stephen Robcraft5
0
0

A couple come to mind but, if you'll allow it, I would first respond to your prompt(s) with:

  • I don't think there are loads of examples of organisations with better governance (boards are weird, after all) overall - I'd argue that EA norms and practices lead to better governance, relative to traditional nonprofits, in some respects and worse in others. Nonprofits could generally do governance better.
  • I'm not sure it makes sense to isolate 2b and 3b here - 1a can also play a role in mitigating failure (and some combination of all three might be optimal)

The two stories that come to mind both seem realistic to me (I'd take the bet these have happened recently) but might not meet your bar for 'very bad'. However, I'd argue we can set the bar a bit higher (lower? depends how you look at it....) and aim for governance that mitigates against more mundane risks, providing the trade-off makes sense. I think it does.

Story 1 - A new-ish EA project/org has received 12 months of funding to do [something]. At the end of the 12 months, [something] has not been achieved but the money has been spent.

In this story, the funder has accepted that they are making a bet, that there's some level of experimentation going on, that there are lots of uncertainties and assumptions etc. However, in this story, it was perfectly possible for [something] to be delivered, or for some equally impactful [something else] to be identified and delivered. Neither happened, but the team has spent most, if not all, of its funding and has just failed to deliver. They might have a compelling story about what they'll do next year and get more funding, they might not. 

(1a) With a well-run Board of Trustees (made up of impartial, experienced, connected and credentialed people) overseeing the work of the less experienced project team and holding them to account, I think it's reasonable to imagine the team gets clearer, quicker about their objectives and how to deliver on these; more effectively monitors and responds to information about their progress during the year; more likely notices the ways in which they might change course in pursuit of impact; and so on. 

(3b) With more performance monitoring from the funder, both the funder and project team realise early on that things aren't going well. The funder can provide funder plus-type support to the team, make clear their expectations of the project team in the event that targets aren't met, or really take any other action that makes sense to try and maximise the impact of their funding.

(2b) I'd argue that there's nothing much here that will impact on whether or not the team is successful on this occasion. But it seems to me that the org/funder being transparent about what happened would be in keeping with EA principles, and would support others in the community making a judgment about donating to the team in the future. 

Story 2 - There's an organisation going along just fine, doing impactful community-building work. But they are leaking small amounts of money through lax management accounting. The amounts are small but not inconsequential when you consider the principle of cost-effectiveness and the counterfactual impact of the money being wasted.

In this story, the org has grown over the last few years and seen founders move on, key staff members move, junior team members step up and just a lot of change and turnover in general. Their financial accounting is absolutely fine (they outsource this to accountants), but rarely (if ever) have they reviewed management accounts to get a handle on where money is going. Why would they? No one has asked them to.

They have Zoom subscriptions that nobody uses because they have a Google Workspace account and just default to Google Meet. That Google Workspace account hasn't had a nonprofit discount applied. They have an Airtable team plan, with 27 collaborators who no longer work at the organisation, or who only looked at some data once, two years ago. They buy Huel for the office every week but aren't really clear on who's drinking it or how it contributes to their Theory of Change. 

All in all, $1000s a year are being wasted. I'd accept that implementing (1a) and (3b) to stop this kind of thing is a bit over the top - after all, this is just an issue with performance/competence/attention that can be fixed by having the right people and systems in place. But then it's (1a) that puts the right people in place and both (1a) and (3b) that can oversee/monitor work, incentivising and/or requiring good performance and ensuring attention on the right things.

Reply
calebp7
0
0

Thanks, this is a great response. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.

I'm not sure it makes sense to isolate 2b and 3b here - 1a can also play a role in mitigating failure (and some combination of all three might be optimal).

I just isolated these because I thought that you were most interested in EA orgs improving on 2b/3b, but noted.

Reply
Ozzie Gooen7
4
0

I'm happy to see this, thanks for organizing! 

Quickly: One other strand of survey I'd be curious about is basically, "Which organizations/ideas do you feel comfortable critiquing?"

I have a hunch that many people are very scared of critiquing some of the powerful groups, but I'd be eager to see data. 

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/hAHNtAYLidmSJK7bs/who-is-uncomfortable-critiquing-who-around-ea

Reply
Yi-Yang3
0
0

Thanks for sharing! Hmm, that does pique my interest too..

Reply
barkbellowroar1
0
0
1

It's been a minute since I've been on the forum so my recollection of Karma voting is rusty. Does the agree-disagree function follow the same rules as strong voting? For example, the first question has 35 agree / 56 disagree - are those votes saying 56 individual users or could it be a few users who strongly disagreed with it? Just trying to figure out the actual number of people answering the poll. Thanks!

Reply
Sarah Cheng7
4
0
3

None of the EA Forum reacts (including agree/disagree) have a strong version, so those would just be the individual number of users.

Reply
More from Yi-Yang
View more
Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities
View more