Should I Be Public About Effective Altruism?

TL;DR: I've kept my EA ties low-profile due to career and reputational concerns, especially in policy. But I'm now choosing to be more openly supportive of effective giving, despite some risks.

For most of my career, I’ve worked in policy roles—first as a civil servant, now in an EA-aligned organization. Early on, both EA and policy work seemed wary of each other. EA had a mixed reputation in government, and I chose to stay quiet about my involvement, sharing only in trusted settings.

This caution gave me flexibility. My public profile isn’t linked to EA, and I avoided permanent records of affiliation. At times, I’ve even distanced myself deliberately. But I’m now wondering if this is limiting both my own impact and the spread of ideas I care about.

Ideas spread through visibility. I believe in EA and effective giving and want it to become a social norm—but norms need visible examples. If no one speaks up, can we expect others to follow?

I’ve been cautious about reputational risks—especially the potential downsides of being tied to EA in future influential roles, like running for office. EA still carries baggage: concerns about longtermism, elitism, the FTX/SBF scandal, and public misunderstandings of our priorities. But these risks seem more manageable now. Most people I meet either don’t know EA, or have a neutral-to-positive view when I explain it. Also, my current role is somewhat publicly associated with EA, and that won’t change. Hiding my views on effective giving feels less justifiable.

So, I’m shifting to increased openness: I’ll be sharing more and be more honest about the sources of my thinking, my intellectual ecosystem, and I’ll more actively push ideas around effective giving when relevant. I’ll still be thoughtful about context, but near-total caution no longer serves me—or the causes I care about.

This seems likely to be a shared challenge, curious how to hear how others are navigating it and whether your thinking has changed lately. 

Voted!  I also donated to get the digital download bundle—because, secretly, I’m still a Nerdfighter!  

EA 💚 Nerdfighteria  
 

The EA Focusmate group has been a massive productivity boost, and to my own surprise, I even made some friends through it!

I just wish the group element on Focusmate were actually a little bit stronger (e.g., more means of interaction, other shared accountability), but this is a limitation of the platform, not the group.

Yes! 

TLDR: This forum post is well-written but overlooks two key points: the high-status perception of OP funding within EA, which skews community inclusion and metrics, and the reputational risks for non-EA-branded donors and organisations in aligning with EA, leading to a disconnect in recognising their contributions.

This forum post effectively outlines the options and includes a (partial) call to action to stop complaining, acknowledge issues, and take steps forward. However, it overlooks two important aspects that I believe warrant discussion:

First, the post does not account for how funding from OP is perceived as a marker of being an EA organisation. This perception creates a feedback loop where organisations funded by Open Philanthropy are seen as high-status and placed centrally within the EA community. In contrast, organisations or sub-teams not viewed as fully aligned are often excluded from community metrics. This dynamic significantly influences which organisations are recognised as part of the EA community.

Additionally, in these kinds of statistics, there is little recognition of sub-teams within organisations or EA-adjacent groups that contribute to EA goals without formally associating with the movement. For example, many civil service roles are funded through diverse portfolios and remain underrepresented in these discussions. Similarly, some organisations prefer not to publicly align with EA for strategic reasons, despite their close alignment in practice.

Second, for figures like Dustin and Cari, donating to EA-branded organisations may make sense given their personal brands are closely tied to the community. However, for other donors, explicitly associating with EA poses reputational risks and diminishes the credit they receive for their philanthropic efforts. Schmidt Futures exemplifies this—it is a family-funded organisation doing work aligned with EA interests but avoids formally associating with the movement, as I think there’s little incentive to do so from their perspective.

Similarly, I work for an organisation largely funded by a donor not widely considered an "EA billionaire," yet the organisation is almost entirely staffed by EAs doing aligned work. Despite this, the donor is unlikely to appear in lists of EA funding sources, highlighting a gap in how contributions are recognised.

As a bit of a lurker, let me echo all of this, particularly the appreciation of @Vasco Grilo🔸. I don't always agree with him, but adding some numbers makes every discussion better!

Thank you for fixing this! 

I also don’t think it’s a good use of time, which is why I’m asking the question.

However, I believe attending is worth significantly more than three hours. That’s why I’ve invested a lot of time in this previously, though I’d still prefer to allocate that time elsewhere if possible.

E: It’s very helpful to know that the acceptance rate is much higher than I had thought. It already makes me feel like I can spend less time on this task this year.

Hi, I hope this is a good time to ask a question regarding the application process. Is it correct that it is possible to apply a second time after an initial application has been rejected?  

I understand that the bar for acceptance might be higher on a second attempt. However, I feel this would allow me to save considerable time on the application process. Since I was accepted last year and a few times before, I might be able to reuse an old application with minimal editing. This could help me—and potentially many others—avoid spending three or more hours crafting an entirely new application from scratch.  

Looking forward to your response! 😊 

Does anyone have thoughts on whether it’s still worthwhile to attend EAGxVirtual in this case?

I have been considering applying for EAGxVirtual, and I wanted to quickly share two reasons why I haven't:

• I would only be able to attend on Sunday afternoon CET, and it seems like it might be a waste to apply if I'm only available for that time slot, as this is something I would never do for an in-person conference.
• I can't find the schedule anywhere. You probably only have access to it if you are on Swapcard, but this makes it difficult to decide ahead of time whether it is worth attending, especially if I can only attend a small portion of the conference.