Thanks for sharing! I'm honestly not sure what to answer to this, I feel some of your doubts / points are already addressed in the post. I guess it's where the crux is, whether you believe increasing diversity of representation would be positive for the movement as a way to show others that EA is not a sticker that absolutely defines the whole set of beliefs/values of a person, or not. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future about this. But I probably still want to advocate for making the decision to "not affiliate" intentional, when it could just be a non-decision, a default.

Thank you for sharing that, I think those numbers are a great addition to this post. It would be amazing to have an update of this post-FTX and post-OpenAI.

Thank you! That's a useful framing.

Thank you Camille for sharing this.

I've thought a bit about that angle too, and I tend to think it is also a strategy (though obviously, a costly one) for oppressed minorities to have more people being outspoken about their belonging to a certain group. I think the quote from Change touches a bit on that. Though being a woman and being LGBTQ+ are very different flavours of 'minority belonging' (for several reasons that I won't expand on here). For people to debunk stereotypes about certain populations, you need to show their diversity, or at least it seems to me like one of the viable strategies.

I am, by no means, saying it's not costly. I think I would want more people to consider sharing the cost.

About this point

the wealth of ressources and arguments I could throw to people, or just knowing they'll run into them at some point

I'd like to point you to this resource that do provide guidance on responding to criticisms of EA, if you don't know about it. And I do think individuals are working to "debunk false ideas and over-generalizations related to EA" at their scale. I'm sad to read you've been discouraged to do so. I do agree that the EA community as a whole has not been communicative enough at the crucial moments when it made the news, and I have been (with other community builders) quite frank about it to CEA's new CEO Zach Robinson, and CEA's Communications Team. Hopefully, they are currently taking steps that go in this direction (as Zach's talk at EAG London suggests). I also have suggested that community builders could also do a bigger part there, but it takes time.

I hope the EA community can step up to the task and better support each other in that endeavor.

To the second point, yes, I probably agree, and it's an approach I find useful.

But sometimes you don't get the chance to say so many words, and giving the opportunity to people to connect the dot "EA" to "your values and your actions" might increase the understanding one has of EA (as it would for feminism), without necessarily engaging in a lengthy conversation with all of the people that would be able to connect the dots otherwise by observing your actions from a bit further. I hope that makes sense.

Thank you for sharing this!

Were it the case that I thought that the community was mistaken on any or many of its determinations, I would still consider myself to be EA.

I think that's nice.

One issue is likely the relative unipolarity of EA funding.

I agree with this. I think this is one of the major issues, and I've mentioned it in the past.

no person would be perfectly represented by its collective actions.

Yes, i'd guess one could say it's the other side of the token problem, and why we might need to show a greater diversity of people "affiliating".

Thank you for your comment.

On your first points, I think there are totally fair. I feel that's the preconditions of the prisonner's dilemma.

Then, I see your point on free-rider and I will reflect on it. I'd add that people mentioning how EA might have influence them or how an organization might make decisions influenced by EA principles seems completely different (to me) than "being an EA" ("identifying") and orgs "being EA orgs". I tend to think those latter framings are not necessarily useful, especially in the context of what I'm advocating for.

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this.

I generally don't feel disagreement with what you say, I don't think it's completely opposed to what I'm advocating for. I feel that there's a huge deal of interpretation around the words used, here "affiliation" (and as mentioned at the beginning of the post, not "identity").

I do think more people "affiliating" will make EA less of an ingroup / outgroup, and more of a philosophy (a "general held value system" as you say in the beginning) people adhere to to some extent, esp if framed as "this is a community that inspires me, those are ideas that are influencing my actions".

Thank you for sharing!

I would like to emphasize my choice of word ("affiliation" and not "identity"), as I do understand the offputting implications of "being an EA" (as opposed to "being part of the EA community" or another less identity-defining formulation).

I also want to add that I don't think anyone can claim they endorse everything about a movement they consider themselves a part of (e.g. feminism or civil rights or...), I don't think it's possible to expect full alignment for anyone in any movement. I think it's important people know that about EA. I think there are as many definitions of EA as there are "members". But I also think not defining it for yourself will leave more space for others to define it for you (and most likely, wrongly). (That is to say, I probably won't support anything along the lines of "you misunderstanding EA" or "you not being aligned with EA", but I can't say anything with certainty as I don't have enough context on you)

I hope that makes sense.