What's your experience with elitism in EA? [Survey]

I'd be curious to see a specific fictional story of failure that you think is:
* realistic (e.g. you'd be willing to bet at unfavourable odds that something similar has happened in the last year)
* seems very bad (e.g. worth say 25%+ of the org's budget to fix)
* is handled well at more mature charities with better governance
* stems from things like 2b and 3b

I'm struggling to come up with examples that I find compelling, but I'm sure you've thought about this a lot more than I have.

Thanks for sharing! Hmm, that does pique my interest too..

None of the EA Forum reacts (including agree/disagree) have a strong version, so those would just be the individual number of users.

1.a. I found EA's reality more exclusive than its inclusive messaging suggested.

Needs not fulfilled: clarity, authenticity, equality

Associated emotions: confusion, disappointment, anger

Description: “I was drawn to EA because it seemed like an inclusive, compassionate community focused on doing the most good. The messaging talks about being welcoming to everyone, caring for all beings, and solving problems together. I expected something more like a collaborative movement where passionate people work together as equals. Instead, I found a highly stratified system, where only the most credentialed, accomplished, and competent people get funding, platforms, or influence. I feel disappointed. I know EA doesn’t advertise itself as democratic and egalitarian. But the gap between EA's inclusive messaging and its exclusive reality leads to mismatched expectations.”

1.b. I found EA's messaging accurately reflects its inclusive and meritocratic reality.

Needs fulfilled: clarity, authenticity, equality

Associated emotions: trust, satisfaction

Description: "I was drawn to EA because it seemed like a community focused on doing the most good, and I've found that it lives up to its messaging. Whilst EA does have standards and focuses on competence, I've experienced it as genuinely inclusive and welcoming to people from diverse backgrounds who are committed to EA principles. The stratification that exists seems merit-based rather than arbitrary— I've seen many examples of people without impressive credentials being given opportunities, funding, and platforms based on the quality of their ideas and work. I appreciate that EA is honest about being a movement focused on expertise and impact rather than pure egalitarianism, which helps set appropriate expectations. The gap between messaging and reality feels minimal, and I feel like I can trust what EA organisations say about their values and practices."

2.a. I've seen EA organisations select people who fit in rather than those who perform best.

Needs not fulfilled: effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: worry, envy, anger

Description: "I'm worried that EA organisations and programmes are systematically selecting the wrong people for important roles. I've noticed concerning patterns where personal connections, shared backgrounds, or ideological alignment appear to matter more than merit or accomplishments. Furthermore, I'm unsure whether they adequately screen for integrity, which is especially crucial for leadership positions. The tendency for EAs to live together in group houses and maintain close personal relationships creates additional conflicts of interest that can compromise objective evaluation. I worry that this creates a self-perpetuating cycle where people are selected based on their similarity to existing influential EAs rather than their ability to effectively create impact."

2.b. I've seen EA organisations effectively select based on merit and potential.

Needs fulfilled: effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: confidence, trust, satisfaction

Description: "I'm impressed by how EA organisations have developed robust selection processes. Whilst I understand the inherent difficulty in predicting who will perform excellently, I've observed thoughtful hiring practices that focus on demonstrated competence, relevant experience, and integrity rather than familiarity with current leaders. I've seen people from underrepresented backgrounds succeed in gaining positions based purely on their competence and potential impact. EA organisations also seem to actively guard against conflicts of interest. Even when there are social connections within the community, I've witnessed organisations maintain professional standards and objective evaluation criteria. Rather than creating a self-perpetuating cycle of similarity, the selection processes seem designed to bring in fresh perspectives and diverse talent."

I think this dichotomy is interesting: IMO "accountability" and "healthiness" are different dimensions. I'm voting 'no' on 'protecting influential members from accountability', but abstaining from 'encouraging healthy accountability', because while there is quite a bit of that (again IMO), there's also unhealthy accountability at times, which (once again IMO) contributes to sometimes sparse details being published.

3.a. I've experienced EA's social dynamics as protecting influential members from accountability.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: worry

Description: "I'm concerned that EA's social dynamics create unhealthy power structures that protect influential members from accountability. Access to information and opportunities depends on personal connections with influential EAs, favouring socially skilled individuals, sycophants, or those sharing their demographics. There's an exclusive 'in-group' social scene that's difficult to break into without displaying the right social signals or adopting orthodox positions. Even when done in a genuine truth-seeking manner, expressing certain views or asking uncomfortable questions can lead to social ostracism or retaliation, as seen in the high number of anonymous users on the EA Forum. This creates an environment where challenging powerful people becomes risky. I worry that these dynamics make it easier for influential members to avoid scrutiny and harder for the community to self-correct when problems arise."

3.b. I've experienced EA's social dynamics as encouraging healthy accountability.

Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: trust, optimistic, calmness

Description: "I'm impressed by how EA's social dynamics actively promote accountability and encourage open, honest discourse. Access to information and opportunities does not depend on personal connections. The community feels genuinely welcoming to different perspectives, and I've observed heated but respectful debates on contentious topics without fear of retribution. People regularly challenge established figures and orthodox positions, and these challenges are taken seriously rather than dismissed. I appreciate how the community values intellectual humility, with influential members regularly acknowledging when they've made mistakes or changed their minds. There's a healthy culture of constructive criticism where challenging powerful people is seen as valuable rather than risky."

4.a. I found EA competitive beneath its collaborative surface.

Needs not fulfilled: cooperation, peace

Associated emotions: tenseness, mistrustfuless

Description: "Despite EA's emphasis on collaboration, I've found it to be an intensely competitive environment beneath the surface. Whilst resources and influence aren't entirely zero-sum, they're still quite limited, which creates real competition for funding, opportunities, and social status within the movement. Yes, there's a supportive culture on the surface, but I've observed a hidden layer of politicking that feels at odds with EA's stated values. Privileged members have significant advantages—safety nets that let them take risks and weather setbacks that would derail others. It sounds admirable when wealthy, well-connected people 'give back' through EA work, but I resent how this allows them to accumulate moral status and recognition more easily than those of us without such advantages."

4.b. I found EA genuinely collaborative despite competitive elements.

Needs fulfilled: cooperation, peace

Associated emotions: secure, trustingness

Description: "Whilst EA does have some competitive elements, I've found it to be genuinely collaborative and supportive in practice. Yes, resources and influence are limited, which naturally creates some competition for funding and opportunities, but I've observed people actively supporting each other rather than undermining competitors. Whilst wealthy, well-connected people do gain recognition for their EA work, I've seen them consistently use their platforms to highlight others' contributions and support people from less privileged backgrounds, either through mentorship or financial support. Rather than hidden politicking, I've witnessed transparent discussions between competitors. They openly discuss how to best compete and cooperate to produce the best outcome for the world. The competitive elements that do exist feel healthy and constructive rather than destructive or zero-sum."

5.a. I sense constant evaluation and judgment

Needs not fulfilled: acceptance, authenticity

Associated emotions: fear, tenseness, shame

Description: "There's relentless pressure to prove you're 'EA enough'—that your ideas are rigorous, your career or donation choices optimal, and your cause prioritisation well-reasoned. I've been told directly that this movement might not be a good fit for me, which felt like a polite way of saying I'm not competent enough. I’ve seen posts and comments getting downvoted significantly for slight mistakes. Even when influential EAs are being friendly or supportive, I sense they're still evaluating my competency beneath the surface. The frequent discussions about performance reinforce this feeling that everyone is constantly being assessed. I know completely judgement-free environments don't exist, but EA leans heavily towards being overly judgmental. This makes it hard for me to relax and be authentic in EA spaces."

5.b. I feel accepted and can be authentic without constant evaluation.

Needs fulfilled: acceptance, authenticity

Associated emotions: confidence, security, calmness

Description: "I feel genuinely accepted in EA spaces without needing to constantly prove my worth or EA credentials. I know completely judgement-free environments don't exist, but EA leans towards being appropriately judgmental on things that matter most, like honesty and respect. There's encouragement to share ideas and ask questions in the EA Forum even if they might only get a few upvotes. People have made it clear that the movement benefits from diverse perspectives and that there's no single way to be 'EA enough.' Even when interacting with influential EAs, the conversations feel genuine rather than like evaluations. Whilst people do discuss ideas and approaches critically, it feels like intellectual engagement rather than personal assessment. This creates an environment where I can contribute authentically without fear of being found inadequate.”

6.a. I feel invisible and inadequate in EA.

Needs not fulfilled: equality, to be seen, to matter, belongingness

Associated emotions: envy, shame, anger

Description: “I wish I was smarter, more competent, more accomplished, more... It's not fair. Many EAs are from competitive universities or have accomplished impressive feats. They get invited to exclusive coworking spaces and retreats. They get grants easily or are in positions to give out grants to others. They get 100+ karma points on the EA Forum whilst I struggle to contribute meaningfully to discussions. They are younger than me but already moving between prestigious roles, whilst I'm burnt out from rejections. Even their hobbies are impressive—thoughtful Substack posts instead of casual social media, ultra-marathons instead of occasional gym workouts. Furthermore, the Western, English-speaking backdrop, the complex core knowledge in the EA Handbook, technical jargon-filled discussions, and rationalist norms like high decoupling make EA’s barrier to entry much higher. I just want to be seen, to matter, and to be appreciated in the movement. But I feel like an invisible imposter.”

6.b. I feel valued and capable within EA regardless of my background.

Needs fulfilled: equality, to be seen, to matter, belongingness

Associated emotions: satisfaction, confidence, gratefulness

Description: "I'm grateful for how EA has welcomed me and valued my contributions, even though I don't have an impressive background. Whilst many EAs are highly accomplished, I've found that the community is generally humble and appreciates diverse forms of contribution. I received funding/opportunities based purely on the merit of my proposal and accomplishments. My posts on the EA Forum receive thoughtful engagement. What I particularly appreciate is that EA values different types of excellence—not everyone needs to be writing academic papers or running marathons to matter. The community has helped me develop my thinking and skills rather than making me feel excluded for lacking certain knowledge. The barrier to entry feels reasonable for a movement focused on rigorous thinking about important problems. My background and current level of accomplishment don't prevent me from being seen, heard, and appreciated."

7.a. I envy other EAs' economic and geographic advantages.

Needs not fulfilled: equality

Associated emotions: envy, anger

Description: “I’d like to be as rich as some EA folks, or migrate to a high-income country with more freedom, better infrastructure, and more effective governance. They could afford to live in the most expensive locations in the world, where most of the most important EA events and opportunities happen. It’s nice to not deal with visa, travel, or timezone issues. They worry less about electrical outages or being oppressed. I  don't know how some afford non-profit salaries whilst raising families, or travel to different continents yearly as digital nomads. I know many of them live pretty frugally so they could donate more, but it seems inconsistent for some of them to still live such opulent lives. I feel angry and envious. I know it’s a bad idea, but I sometimes wish they would all live in a low-income country. That would convey a strong signal of solidarity that would make me trust them more.”

7.b. I'm content with my economic and geographic circumstances.

Needs fulfilled: equality, inclusion, fairness

Associated emotions: contentment, happiness, hope

Description: "I feel content with my own economic and geographic circumstances and don't find myself envious of EAs who have greater wealth or live in countries with better infrastructure and governance. I'm grateful that EA creates opportunities for meaningful contribution regardless of location or wealth. I've benefited enormously from mentorship by more established EAs who've generously shared their knowledge, connections, and opportunities with me. The movement's increasing focus on remote participation, travel grants, and global events means I don't feel excluded by my circumstances. Many wealthy EAs live modestly and donate generously, which I find admirable rather than frustrating. The focus on impact means that good work gets recognised whether you're based in San Francisco or rural Bangladesh."

8.a. I was treated with disrespect and indignity by influential EAs.

Needs not fulfilled: respect

Associated emotions: anger

Description: “People with significant power within EA have disrespected me in our interactions. They often showed up late to our meetings with little or no communication. They’ve used negative labels like ‘stupid’ or ‘incompetent’ to describe me. They've ignored my messages or emails without explanation despite our ongoing relationship. They’ve violated or frequently pushed the limits of my boundaries, like insisting on discussing topics I said I wasn't comfortable with. I feel indignant at being treated this way.”

8.b. I was treated with respect and dignity by influential EAs.

Needs fulfilled: respect

Associated emotions: security, calmness

Description: "People with significant power within EA have consistently treated me with respect and professionalism in our interactions. They reliably show up on time to our meetings and communicate promptly if they need to reschedule. I've never been called derogatory names or had my competence dismissed. They respond to my messages and emails in a timely manner, maintaining the courtesy you'd expect in any professional relationship. Most importantly, they respect my boundaries and comfort levels. Their respectful conduct has made me feel welcomed and appreciated within the community."

9.a. I've witnessed influential EAs manipulate information and coerce individuals.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, respect, justice

Associated emotions: fear, shame, anger

Description: "I believe influential EAs have manipulated and coerced both individuals and the broader movement in worrying ways. I've witnessed lies told to me and the community, and been threatened into costly actions. They deliberately withhold information or share it selectively to benefit their positions. Critical decisions that affect the entire movement are made behind closed doors without input from ordinary EA practitioners. I've observed them systematically developing structures and processes that serve to preserve or enhance their personal influence. The manipulation feels particularly insidious because it's often disguised as being 'for the greater good' or 'for the movement's benefit'."

9.b. I've witnessed influential EAs demonstrate transparency and ethical leadership.

Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, respect, justice

Associated emotions: trust, security, calmness

Description: "I've consistently observed influential EAs demonstrating genuine transparency and ethical leadership in their interactions with individuals and the broader movement. They've been honest and forthcoming in their communications with me and the community, even when it might be inconvenient or reflect poorly on them. I've never experienced threats from EA leaders—when disagreements arise, they engage respectfully and allow me to make my own decisions without pressure. Information sharing feels appropriately transparent and clear. Major decisions affecting the movement involve meaningful consultation with the broader EA community. I've seen them develop structures and processes that distribute rather than concentrate power, creating systems designed to serve EA's mission rather than personal interests."

10.a. I'm worried about EA's lack of governance safeguards against power abuse.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: worry

Description: "I'm worried that EA lacks adequate formal check-and-balances against influential members who might abuse their power. There's limited transparency about how major decisions are made, how resources are allocated, or what oversight mechanisms exist. The EA Forum's karma system can amplify certain voices in ways that affect perceived legitimacy and influence over community direction. I worry that unscrupulous actors could exploit these governance gaps and concentrated power structures to pursue their own interests whilst claiming to serve the greater good."

10.b. I'm confident EA has effective governance safeguards and oversight against power abuse.

Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, justice

Associated emotions: trust, security, calmness

Description: "I'm confident that EA has developed robust governance safeguards and oversight mechanisms that protect against abuse of power by influential members. Whilst EA involves some centralisation around key organisations and individuals, I've observed transparent decision-making processes and effective accountability measures. The EA Forum provides an excellent platform for open debate and scrutiny of decisions, and I've seen leadership respond thoughtfully to community feedback and criticism. When misconduct has occurred, I've witnessed accountability measures and institutional reforms being implemented. A few EA organisations maintain public 'mistakes' pages and undergo external evaluations. I feel assured that the movement's governance continues to mature and strengthen, with proper safeguards in place to prevent unscrupulous actors from exploiting the system for personal gain."

11.a. I've observed cronyism in EA funding decisions that benefits insiders.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice

Associated emotions: worry, anger

Description: "I've observed concerning patterns where influential EAs have diverted funding from more deserving recipients to themselves or their close associates in ways that seem ethically questionable, even if technically legal. Even when these arrangements follow proper procedures on paper, they violate the spirit of merit-based allocation that EA claims to uphold. I worry that this undermines trust in EA institutions and means that truly impactful projects may be overlooked in favour of those connected to the right people. The movement's emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks, whilst valuable in some ways, creates opportunities for this kind of self-dealing that damages EA's credibility and effectiveness."

11.b. I've observed fair and merit-based EA funding decisions with strong oversight.

Needs fulfilled: safety, honesty, justice

Associated emotions: confidence, trust, calmness

Description: "I've consistently observed EA funding decisions that prioritise merit and impact over personal connections or insider status. When conflicts of interest do exist, they're transparently disclosed and properly managed through recusal processes or independent review panels. I've seen funding opportunities designed with clear, objective criteria that focus on potential impact rather than benefiting particular individuals or networks. There's robust independent oversight and transparent reporting that makes it easy to distinguish between legitimate awards and any potential favouritism. I feel confident that truly impactful projects receive fair consideration regardless of the applicants' connections to funding bodies. The movement's emphasis on personal relationships and trust networks operates within appropriate ethical boundaries, enhancing rather than undermining fair decision-making."

12.a. I'm worried about how concentrated resources and influence are in EA.

Needs not fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: worry, anger

Description: "I'm deeply concerned about how resources and influence are concentrated among a small minority within EA, which creates dangerous vulnerabilities. Open Philanthropy dominates EA funding by an enormous margin, and a few key individuals hold disproportionate sway over research directions and community standards. When so much power rests with so few people, it becomes much easier for them to circumvent whatever checks and balances exist. The funding landscape lacks the diversity and distributed decision-making that would make it more robust against groupthink, conflicts of interest, or misuse of power. This concentration doesn't just threaten equality—it creates genuine risks for the movement's integrity and effectiveness."

12.b. I'm happy with how concentrated resources and influence are in EA.

Needs fulfilled: safety, effectiveness, equality

Associated emotions: security, confidence, calmness

Description: “I'm reassured by how EA has concentrated resources and influence among highly capable individuals and organisations. When power rests with competent people, it enables swift, well-informed responses that distributed systems simply couldn't achieve. The funding landscape benefits from having experienced professionals who understand complex cause areas and can make sophisticated trade-offs between competing priorities. The individuals with significant influence have consistently demonstrated good judgement and commitment to EA values. Rather than creating vulnerabilities, this concentration provides the movement with the leadership needed to tackle urgent global problems effectively.”

13.a. I think EAs' belief in concentrating power among the competent is misguided.

Needs not fulfilled: effectiveness

Associated emotions: worry

Description: "I'm concerned about some EAs’ belief that influence and resources should be concentrated among a minority of highly competent and accomplished individuals. Even if EA organisations and programmes could perfectly identify the right people, I think this centralised approach is fundamentally flawed. Highly competent people are still subject to self-interest and self-delusion that can lead to poor decisions. The more influence any individual has, the more damage they can potentially cause when they make mistakes or prioritise their own interests over the movement's. I’m not advocating extreme egalitarianism, where all EA members have equal resources and influence. But I believe that spreading influence and resources among more people would significantly reduce these risks. Yes, a more distributed approach might suffer from typical democratic issues, but I believe this is a worthwhile trade-off."

13.b. I think EAs' belief in concentrating power among the competent is wise.

Needs fulfilled: effectiveness

Associated emotions: confidence, trust

Description: "I strongly support some EAs’ belief that influence and resources should be concentrated among a minority of highly competent and accomplished individuals. I'm not advocating that an extreme minority has total control over the movement. But a more centralised approach is far more effective than distributing influence and resources broadly among all EA practitioners. Whilst highly competent people are indeed human and fallible, their track record demonstrates they make significantly better decisions than democratic alternatives would produce. A more distributed approach would inevitably suffer from democratic inefficiencies. These downsides aren't minor trade-offs—they represent fundamental threats to EA's effectiveness that could prevent us from addressing urgent global problems."