While I understand the intent behind publicly praising well-known contributors, I think we should consider the potential downsides. Heaping more praise on individuals who are already widely celebrated could be net negative, especially when there are many others who contribute valuable work but go largely ignored on the forum. This risks reinforcing a narrow focus on a few voices at the expense of elevating diverse perspectives and recognizing unsung contributors. Perhaps it would be more productive to highlight those who often don’t receive recognition but still make significant contributions.

Also, I believe you meant “compliments,” not “complements.”

A common perception in EA is that Open Philanthropy and other elite EA organizations focus on doing the most good, which can come across as detached from broader community engagement. However, I believe there is a strong case, even from an impartial welfarist perspective, that empowering the broader EA community to explore and test ideas could be extremely high-EV. The EA community is vast, and there is a wealth of ideas beyond what the elite circle generates. Yet, the "do-ocracy" model, where people are encouraged to pursue their own projects, often disempowers those who don’t have the time or resources to do so.

Additionally, the dismissal of "EA should" statements, where suggestions are ignored because the originator isn’t positioned to implement them, further limits the potential for innovation. While tools like the EA Funds exist, they focus narrowly on pre-determined areas, and rejections are often made without feedback, leaving many high-EV ideas unexplored and unsupported.

Given that much of EA’s potential for innovation lies within the broader community, what steps can Open Phil take to better engage with and support exploratory, high-EV ideas from the wider EA base? How can Open Phil foster an environment where more ideas from the community can be tested, rather than maintaining a top-down approach that may be missing valuable opportunities?

Thanks for the comment, Ben! You’re right that a perfectly applied scout mindset involves critically analyzing information and updating based on evidence, rather than deferring. In theory, someone applying the scout mindset would update the correct amount based on the fact that they have an interest in a certain outcome, without automatically yielding to critiques. However, in practice, I think there’s a tendency within EA to celebrate the relinquishing of positions, almost as a marker of intellectual humility or objectivity.

This can create a culture where people may feel pressure to seem "scouty" by yielding more often than is optimal, even when the epistemological ecosystem might actually need them to advocate for the value of their intervention or program. In such cases, the desire to appear unbiased or intellectually humble could lead people to abandon or underplay their projects prematurely, which could be a loss for the broader system.

It’s a subtle difference, but I think it’s worth considering how the scout mindset is applied in practice, especially when there’s a risk of overcorrecting in the direction of giving up rather than pushing for the potential value of one’s work.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Joey. I had originally approached this issue more from the perspective of founders and leaders being less "soldiery" for their projects, but I see that the funder’s viewpoint, especially regarding the counterfactual uses of money, is quite different and valid.

One key difference is that the counterfactual reallocation of talent from failed AIM charities may not be as impactful as the reallocation of funds by AIM-adjacent funders. As you mentioned, many people who worked at a failed AIM charity are likely to join another CE charity or work for an EA meta org, but these roles are in high demand and often attract top-tier talent regardless. It’s not clear that the movement of talent between these organizations would have as large an impact as reallocating funds to more successful initiatives.

This is where the dynamic between founders and funders diverges. From the leader’s perspective, it might make more sense to continue to pivot, seek out other funding sources, and keep the project alive, particularly if they still believe in the long-term potential. On the other hand, from the funder’s perspective, cutting their losses and focusing on capitalizing on wins may provide a much clearer path to maximizing impact. It seems that the optimal decisions for founders and funders could diverge, depending on their roles in the ecosystem.

I appreciate your insight into how marginal bets play into these decisions and how AIM's cohort-based structure could actually benefit from higher shutdown rates. It seems like there’s a balance between empowering founders to pursue potential breakthroughs while ensuring funders can make optimal reallocation decisions for broader impact.

I agree that funders can sometimes quit too early on promising projects. Founders and those directly involved often play a crucial role in pushing through early setbacks. However, I worry that in the EA community, there's an overemphasis on the “scout” mindset—being skeptical of one’s own work and too quick to defer to critiques from others.

I should acknowledge that I may be strawmanning the scout mindset a bit here. In its ideal form, the scout mindset encourages intellectual humility and a willingness to see things as they are, which is clearly valuable. The practical application, however, often leads people to focus on being extra vigilant about potential biases in projects they’re closely involved with. While this caution is important, I think there’s a risk that it prevents people from taking the necessary "inside view" to successfully lead new or risky projects.

Many successful endeavors require a degree of tenacity and advocacy from the inside—the willingness to believe in a project’s potential and push forward despite early doubts. In systems like the legal world or even competitive markets, having “soldiers” who advocate strongly for their side often leads to better overall outcomes. Within EA, founders and project leaders can play this same balancing role by fighting for their initiatives when external doubts arise. Without this advocacy, projects with high long-term potential might be abandoned too soon.

The soldier mindset may be particularly important for those leading high-risk, high-reward projects. Individuals like Elon Musk at SpaceX or Jeff Bezos at Amazon had to persist through early failures because they believed in their projects when others didn’t. Their success depended on taking the inside view and pushing forward despite setbacks. If founders in EA are too quick to adopt the scout mindset, we might lose out on similarly promising projects.

In short, while the scout mindset has its place, I think we need a balance. Founders and those deeply involved in a project should serve as a necessary counterweight to broader skepticism. A healthy epistemic system requires both scouts and soldiers, and right now, I think EA might benefit from more of the latter in some contexts. I’d also be interested in case studies of people who have quit projects to better understand these dynamics. Your research idea sounds like a great way to explore whether we’re underestimating the value of persistence in high-risk, high-reward initiatives.