A premise of this post is that diversity is separable into demographic and intellectual parts. Demographic diversity is when you enumerate all the sources of variance in things like race, gender, faith, birthplace, et. al. and intellectual diversity is where you talk about sources of variance in ideas, philosophy, ideology, priors, et. al..
- No location available
-

Community builder Steve, a guy I made up, who thinks EA should only recruit at ivy league institutions because lots of rigor and curiosity is cultivated therein, might outperform (in utilons per unit effort) community builder Joe, another guy I made up, who thinks EA should only recruit at restaurants because lots of bravery and resilience and operational excellence is cultivated therein. This isn't fair, or aesthetically appealing, but it's plausible.
- No location available
-

High performance, in terms of fixing things that are broken, should remain the EA priority. Not fairness or being a movement people feel good to be a part of. Instrumental value of fairness or the movement being a fun place to hang out is a separate argument, one that should probably stay in the overton window, because I think it's probably true! But what I want is for diversity advocates to make their claims falsifiable. I want calls for diversity (both kinds) to be judged by ITN forecasts/evaluations and then by reality, in that order, like anything else.
- No location available
- community building, movement building,
- [note::Is there a "good" approach to even quantifying this though? I think this is a signal that I ought to crack open "How to Measure Anything"
I also think that applying the ITN framework to something as politically-charged as diversity is a dangerous game to play from a PR perspective.]

A spectrum with an overly-whiggish "if capitalism isn't working, try more capitalism" view on poverty abolition on the one side and the unabomber on the other side is a frame. What if it's not a polarity thing, what if it's a triangle because of a third thing that we dismiss as anomalous when we put on that frame's blinders? What if the best path forward isn't splitting the difference between the extremes somehow, but has nothing to do with those extremes?
- No location available
-
- [note::Ooo, isn't there a name for this? People's tendency to take two sides on any issue instead of realizing the spectrum of opinion is a triangle instead of a line. Reminds me of John Greene's video about a math equation and the green/blue dress.]

diversity does not cause intellectual diversityStandpoint epistemology does not outperform expertise, study, measurement. Standpoint epistemology is the false value prop of demographic diversity. When you run into a black person at EAG you don't assume that they know a lot about OpenPhil's CJR portfolio just because incarceration disproportionately effects black people, black EAs are free to care about whatever cause areas they want. The alternative (assuming that a minority at EAG isn't as impartial in their prioritization as a majority) is equal parts rude and absurd, but I feel like I've seen weak versions of this insinuation around, kind of a lot.
- No location available
-
- [note::I disagree. Diverse teams, on average, outperform homogeneous teams.
Why? A higher level of diversity of background and perspective lends itself to more diverse intellectual discourse and thus better outcomes.]

EA's comparative advantage is altruism, not solidarity
- No location available
-
- [note::I could get behind this.]