FYI the School for Moral Ambition has a career pledge. Participants of their circle programme (like an intro fellowship but self-facilitated) are encouraged to take it at the end. AFAIK, over 100 people have taken it so far. Might be worth reaching out to them to see what they've learned? Niki might be a good person to contact. She manages the circle programme and was a volunteer at EA Netherlands before that.

Just to chime in as someone doing professional community building - these surveys are very useful for all of the reasons David just gave. 

Yup, I agree. I just don't want people to see these survey results and go 'oh, awareness amongst the general pop and elite undergrads is low and, of those who are aware, most are positive, ergo EA doesn't have a reputational issue'. 

By 'us' I mean EA Netherlands. I probably shouldn't say which orgs I'm talking about, sorry. 

My sense is that it's more of an issue in the US amongst the very online (the e/acc part of very online and the woke side of very online). 

I believe all of that is true, but at the same time, I’m almost certain we’ve lost significant credibility with key stakeholders, and sometimes I worry this isn't taken seriously enough. Friendly organisations have explicitly stated they do not want to publicly associate with us due to our EA branding, as the EA brand has become a major drawback among their key stakeholders, particularly in the United States.

Thanks for the boost Jessica! 

I agree completely! However, I feel obliged to point out that some EAs I know intentionally play down their EA associations because they think it will harm their careers. Often, these people are thinking of working in government.  

I weakly think this is a mistake for two reasons. Firstly, as Mathias said, because EA appears to be generally seen as a positive thing (similar to climate change action, according to this study). Secondly, I think Ord is right when he says we could do with more earnestness and sincerity in EA. 

Alix, ex-co-director at EA Switzerland, wrote up some interesting thoughts on this general subject here.  

Interesting take! Thanks for sharing :)

Thanks! Yeah, I thought maybe this was what Larks was referring to. Putting to one side the question of whether that was a valuable discussion or not, I wouldn't put that in the same category as OP's post. The Manifest discussion was about whether an organisation such as Manifest should give a platform to people with views some people consider racist, OP's post is an analysis of the policy platform of a leading candidate in what is arguably the world's most important election. I wouldn't describe the former discussion as 'political' in the same way that I would describe the OP's post. But perhaps others see it differently?

I think it’s unfortunate that critiques of EA are sometimes dismissed because they seem superficial or misinformed. While this might be true in many cases, it’s still important for us to observe—and perhaps even engage with—these criticisms.

Why? 

1. It’s beneficial for people to have an accurate understanding of what we’re doing.
2. We are partly responsible for ensuring this is the case.
3. When critiques are inaccurate, they reveal how others perceive us, giving us an opportunity to improve our communication.
4. Therefore, reading and considering these critiques can help us refine our approach and better convey our work.