I understand that it's perilous, but so is donating a kidney, and a large number of EAs have done that anyway.

Yeah, I heard about that. As far as I can tell, the reason it failed was for reasons specific to the particular implementation here, and not due to the broader idea of implementing a project like this. In addition, Duncan has on multiple occasions expressed support for the idea of running a similar project that can learn from the mistakes made here. So my question is, why haven't more organizations like that been started?

Thanks for the advice. I was saying that this type of community might be good, not just because I would benefit, but because I know a lot of other people who also would. And that due to a lot of arbitrary-seeming concerns, it's likely highly neglected.

First off, I specifically spoke to the LessWrong moderation team in advance of writing this, with the intention of rephrasing my questions so they didn't sound like I was trying to make a point. I'm sorry if I failed in that, but making particular points was not my intention. Second of all, you seem to be taking a very adversarial tone to my post when it was not my intention to take an adversarial tone.

Now, on to my thoughts on your particular points.

I have in fact considered that the rest of EA is incentivized to pretend that there aren't problems. In fact, I'd assume that most of EA has. I'm not accusing the Community Health team of causing any particular scandal; just of broadly introducing an atmosphere where comparatively minor incidents may potentially get blown out of proportion.

There seem to be clear and relevant parallels here. Seven of the fifteen people named as TESCREALists in the First Monday paper are Jewish, and many stereotypes attributed to TESCREALists in this conspiracy theory (victimhood complex, manipulating our genomes, ignoring the suffering of Palestinians) line up with antisemitic stereotypes and go far beyond just "powerful people controlling things."

I want to do maximizing myself because I was under the impression that EA is about maximizing. In my mind, if you just wanted to do a lot of good, you'd work in just about any nonprofit. In contrast, EA is about doing the most good that you can do.

And one more thing: if some people are nervous, wouldn't it be possible to get funded from people who are enthusiastic?

And what I'm describing isn't an individual project full of people who live together; it's coordinating a bunch of people who work on many different projects to move to the same general area. And even if I were describing an individual project full of people who live together, every single failure of such a project within EA is a rounding error compared to the Manhattan Project, for better or worse.

I thought the whole point of EA was that we based our grantmaking decisions on rigorous analyses rather than hunches and anecdotes.

Seems like the kind of thing that should have at least one FTE on it. Is there a reason no one has really put a lot of time into it (e.g. a specific compelling argument that this isn't the right call), or is it just that no one has gotten to it?

How many FTEs are working on this problem?

Additionally, I wonder why there hasn't been an effort to start a more "intense" EA hub somewhere outside the Bay to save on rent and office costs. Seems like we're been writing about coordination problems for quite some time; let's go and solve one.