Another point I would add is that excessive internal criticism within the EA community could also hurt community-building efforts.

Sometimes it's easy for us to forget that EA's core principles of cause prioritization and the moral responsibility to maximize positive impact can be jarring at first encounter (think about the first time you read Singer's drowning child essay).

When someone first reads the very strong arguments in favor of EA, they often look for a "way out" so that they can go back to the comfortable status quo of eating factory-farmed meat and only caring about their pet projects (instead of effective giving). If the EA community presents itself as overly critical of its own core principles, it might lead more people to overlook the compelling theoretical basis that makes up the foundation of EA, and use these critiques as an "out" to vindicate themselves from having to engage with EA any further.

Interesting post! 

I think there is a lot of potential in shifting individual social status dynamics (which are inextricable from human nature) away from conspicuous consumption and potentially towards "conspicuous, effective giving". The impact would be enormous if the wealthiest 5% of the world turned away from spending discretionary income on Louis Vuitton handbags and expensive jewelry for status, and instead used how many lives they've saved through GiveWell charities, etc. 

From a simplified labor-based perspective, this would be functionally equivalent to diverting money to encourage people to spend their time working in global health, x-risk reduction, etc, as opposed to using money to encourage people to spend time laboriously crafting opulent luxury goods, mining and refining gemstones with no functional utility, and spending entire careers advertising lavish goods to no effect other than allowing those at the top of the materialist social hierarchy to flaunt their status.

I'm curious what an effective top-down approach to promoting these social dynamics would look like.