My understanding was that the majority of Givewell donors have essentially nothing to do with EA whatsoever (though this seems to be changing by the sounds of the board meeting Sebastian mentioned linked to above). Is the claim that thereâs an intermediate group who, say, have heard of and would identify with EA and donated to GW-recommended charities but donât actively engage? That doesnât sound crazy.
I agree with all of the latter points, but again my impression was that donations are already very top heavy. Some estimates that might help pin this disagreement more precisely:
What percentage of donations by dollars do you think come from people donating more than $30k annually?
What percentage do you think those people give to meta-charity?
If your answers are, say, 30% and 20%, that already gets you above 5%, and of course thatâs a lower bound at this point.
On the silent donors, Iâm not sure. If youâre giving a lot of money to a GiveWell recommended charity or youâre a member of GWWC, then functionally youâre an EA (in my definition). But I agree many of them might not explicitly identify as EAs. I do think thereâs a significant intermediate group, but Iâm not sure how many.
Perhaps more relevant, even if they donât identify as EA, where the silent donors give is influenced by EA. So I think thereâs still a good case for including them in the money moved.
If we can persuade a big group of people to give to AMF but not metacharities, then it makes sense to do that, and then for the people who are interested in giving to either give to meta charity.
Perhaps more relevant, even if they donât identify as EA, where the silent donors give is influenced by EA. So I think thereâs still a good case for including them in the money moved.
Can you explain why youâre thinking that theyâre influenced by EA? It seems at least equally plausible that theyâre influenced by GiveWell, which is distinct from most EA meta-orgs, and operates using a different model. Are you thinking that thereâs another influence on them, like 80k or GWWC?
Theyâre influenced by GiveWell, and GiveWell is part of EA.
Or even if you donât think GiveWell is part of EA, theyâre very similar to EA in their approach, and many of the staff are explicitly EAs or supporters of EA. I think GiveWell has also been influenced by other groups in EA, though itâs hard to tell.
I agree that GiveWell could be considered part of EA. Ultimately I see that as a merely semantic question. My and I think AGBâs point is that the donors who follow GiveWell arenât self-identified members of the âEA movementâ, and arenât giving because of EA outreach specifically. It appears that organizations doing EA outreach specifically get much more than 5% of the money donated by members of the âEA movementâ who were inspired to give by those organizations.
My understanding was that the majority of Givewell donors have essentially nothing to do with EA whatsoever (though this seems to be changing by the sounds of the board meeting Sebastian mentioned linked to above). Is the claim that thereâs an intermediate group who, say, have heard of and would identify with EA and donated to GW-recommended charities but donât actively engage? That doesnât sound crazy.
I agree with all of the latter points, but again my impression was that donations are already very top heavy. Some estimates that might help pin this disagreement more precisely:
What percentage of donations by dollars do you think come from people donating more than $30k annually?
What percentage do you think those people give to meta-charity?
If your answers are, say, 30% and 20%, that already gets you above 5%, and of course thatâs a lower bound at this point.
On the silent donors, Iâm not sure. If youâre giving a lot of money to a GiveWell recommended charity or youâre a member of GWWC, then functionally youâre an EA (in my definition). But I agree many of them might not explicitly identify as EAs. I do think thereâs a significant intermediate group, but Iâm not sure how many.
Perhaps more relevant, even if they donât identify as EA, where the silent donors give is influenced by EA. So I think thereâs still a good case for including them in the money moved. If we can persuade a big group of people to give to AMF but not metacharities, then it makes sense to do that, and then for the people who are interested in giving to either give to meta charity.
Can you explain why youâre thinking that theyâre influenced by EA? It seems at least equally plausible that theyâre influenced by GiveWell, which is distinct from most EA meta-orgs, and operates using a different model. Are you thinking that thereâs another influence on them, like 80k or GWWC?
Theyâre influenced by GiveWell, and GiveWell is part of EA.
Or even if you donât think GiveWell is part of EA, theyâre very similar to EA in their approach, and many of the staff are explicitly EAs or supporters of EA. I think GiveWell has also been influenced by other groups in EA, though itâs hard to tell.
I agree that GiveWell could be considered part of EA. Ultimately I see that as a merely semantic question. My and I think AGBâs point is that the donors who follow GiveWell arenât self-identified members of the âEA movementâ, and arenât giving because of EA outreach specifically. It appears that organizations doing EA outreach specifically get much more than 5% of the money donated by members of the âEA movementâ who were inspired to give by those organizations.