RE: “ea would be better served by the by having leadership that actually was willing to own their power more”
I would say that under Zach, CEA as an institution is taking more of a leadership role, and people within CEA are more empowered to “own our power”.
I think this would be a mistake (or more likely I think you and Elizabeth mean different things here.)
As you mention in other parts of your comment, most people who consider themselves aligned with EA don’t know or care much about CEA, and coupling their alignment with EA as principles with an alignment with CEA as an organization seems counterproductive.
Ah interesting, yeah it’s certainly possible that I misunderstood Elizabeth here. Apologies if that’s the case!
I’ll try to explain what I mean more, since I’m not sure I understand how my interpretation differs from Elizabeth’s original intent. So in the past, CEA’s general stance was one more like “providing services” to help people in the EA community improve the world. Under Zach, we are shifting in the direction of “stewardship of EA”. I feel that this implies CEA should be more proactive and take more responsibility for the trajectory of EA than it has in the past (to be clear, I don’t think this means we should try to be the sole leader, or give people orders, or be the only voice speaking for EA). One concrete example is about how much steering the Forum team does: in the past, I would have been more hesitant to steer discussions on the Forum, but now it feels more appropriate (and perhaps even necessary) for the Forum team to be more opinionated and steer discussions in that space.
coupling their alignment with EA as principles with an alignment with CEA as an organization
Sorry, I don’t feel like I understand this point — could you expand on this, or rephrase?
My understanding is that you agree with me, while Elizabeth would want effective altruism to be uppercase in a sense, with a package of particular views that she can clearly agree or disagree with, and an EA Leader that says “this is EA” and “this is not EA.” (Apologies if I misunderstood your views)
“CEA as an institution is taking more of a leadership role” could be interpreted as saying that CEA is now more empowered to be the “EA Leader” that decides what is EA, but I think that’s not what you mean from the rest of your comment.
I think these are principles that most people disagree with, and most people are importantly wrong.
I think they are directionally importantly right in my particular social context (while of course they could be dangerous in other theoretical contexts)
Seeing my statements reflected back is helpful, thank you.
I think Effective Altruism isupper case and has been for a long time, in part because it aggressively recruited people who wanted to follow[1]. In my ideal world it both has better leadership and needs less of it, because members are less dependent.
I think rationality does a decent job here. There are strong leaders of individual fiefdoms, and networks of respect and trust, but it’s much more federated.
Which is noble and should be respected- the world needs more followers than leaders. But if you actively recruit them, you need to take responsibility for providing leadership.
Thanks, that’s very helpful! Yeah I believe you’ve correctly described my views. To me, EA is defined by the principles. I’ll update my original comment, since now it seems that bit is misleading.
(I still think there is something there that gestures in the direction that Elizabeth is going. When I say “CEA is taking more of a leadership role”, I simply mean that literally — like, previously CEA was not viewing itself as being in a leadership role, and now it is doing that a non-zero amount. I think it matters that someone views themselves as even slightly responsible for the trajectory of EA, and you can’t really be responsible without wielding some power. So that’s how I read the “willing to own their power more” quote.)
I think this would be a mistake (or more likely I think you and Elizabeth mean different things here.)
As you mention in other parts of your comment, most people who consider themselves aligned with EA don’t know or care much about CEA, and coupling their alignment with EA as principles with an alignment with CEA as an organization seems counterproductive.
Ah interesting, yeah it’s certainly possible that I misunderstood Elizabeth here. Apologies if that’s the case!
I’ll try to explain what I mean more, since I’m not sure I understand how my interpretation differs from Elizabeth’s original intent. So in the past, CEA’s general stance was one more like “providing services” to help people in the EA community improve the world. Under Zach, we are shifting in the direction of “stewardship of EA”. I feel that this implies CEA should be more proactive and take more responsibility for the trajectory of EA than it has in the past (to be clear, I don’t think this means we should try to be the sole leader, or give people orders, or be the only voice speaking for EA). One concrete example is about how much steering the Forum team does: in the past, I would have been more hesitant to steer discussions on the Forum, but now it feels more appropriate (and perhaps even necessary) for the Forum team to be more opinionated and steer discussions in that space.
Sorry, I don’t feel like I understand this point — could you expand on this, or rephrase?
As a personal example, I feel really aligned with EA principles[1], I feel much less sure about CEA as an organization.[2]
If the frame becomes “EA is what CEA does”, you would lose a lot of the value of the term “EA”, and I think very few people would find it useful.
See why effective altruism is always lowercase, and William MacAskill “effective altruism is not a package of particular views.”
My understanding is that you agree with me, while Elizabeth would want effective altruism to be uppercase in a sense, with a package of particular views that she can clearly agree or disagree with, and an EA Leader that says “this is EA” and “this is not EA.” (Apologies if I misunderstood your views)
“CEA as an institution is taking more of a leadership role” could be interpreted as saying that CEA is now more empowered to be the “EA Leader” that decides what is EA, but I think that’s not what you mean from the rest of your comment.
Does that make sense?
For me EA principles are these ones:
I think these are principles that most people disagree with, and most people are importantly wrong.
I think they are directionally importantly right in my particular social context (while of course they could be dangerous in other theoretical contexts)
Despite thinking that all people I’ve interacted with who work there greately care about those same principles.
Seeing my statements reflected back is helpful, thank you.
I think Effective Altruism is upper case and has been for a long time, in part because it aggressively recruited people who wanted to follow[1]. In my ideal world it both has better leadership and needs less of it, because members are less dependent.
I think rationality does a decent job here. There are strong leaders of individual fiefdoms, and networks of respect and trust, but it’s much more federated.
Which is noble and should be respected- the world needs more followers than leaders. But if you actively recruit them, you need to take responsibility for providing leadership.
Thanks, that’s very helpful! Yeah I believe you’ve correctly described my views. To me, EA is defined by the principles. I’ll update my original comment, since now it seems that bit is misleading.
(I still think there is something there that gestures in the direction that Elizabeth is going. When I say “CEA is taking more of a leadership role”, I simply mean that literally — like, previously CEA was not viewing itself as being in a leadership role, and now it is doing that a non-zero amount. I think it matters that someone views themselves as even slightly responsible for the trajectory of EA, and you can’t really be responsible without wielding some power. So that’s how I read the “willing to own their power more” quote.)