Iāve written about this elsewhere, but it is far less constructive when you come at everything with a mindset where you assume malicious intent and find corroborating evidence.
Again, native English speakers sometimes make grammar/āspelling mistakes. Grammar in your non-native language is harder for a variety of reasons. One thing to at least consider is that words such as āin, by, on, untilā donāt often translate perfectly, or kinda mean different things depending on context. I speak English native/āfluently. When I speak in French or Spanish (where Iām proficient-fluent), I definitely make mistakes all the time, precisely because I am doing a lot of translating to/āfrom English and not thinking in the language. Hereās a simple example I came up with in English-Spanish
See how āinā and ābyā both get translated to āenā. I probably would use different phrasing than Google Translate, but it wouldnāt shock me if Sinergia people are using Google Translate (or similar), frequently. Itās exhausting to speak/āwork in your non-native language, and there are all these tiny phrasings that are difficult. Now multiply this by every row/ācolumn in the Google Sheet and every claim, etc.
Itās good that you are reviewing this work, and my offer still stands to pay you for future reviews you want to do in good faith. We need far more rigor on cost-effectiveness analyses, and EA often has a culture where we are too nice to each other to call things out and get defensive about object-level criticism. I think they have gotten better in the last couple of years, but I was fairly unhappy with ACEās cost-effectiveness methods a few years ago, and so I want their work reviewed, checked, and questioned, and perhaps even re-done. But for criticism to be taken well and without defensiveness, you canāt come out fully on the offensive, accuse people of lying and malicious intent everywhere.
ACE clearly made a mistake by leaving column W published in the public view. Iām sure they would actually give you everything unredacted if you asked and were nice about it! But you need to get out of the mindset of doing a charity ātakedownā as opposed to a charity review. It wouldnāt surprise me if many organizations are slightly optimistic in taking credit for things or are a bit generous in their counting. Correcting this is great. It gives us better info/ādata from which to make decisions. If it does turn out that some charities are way off the mark, Iām sure some will be a bit defensive but others will actually want to switch their work.
Here is an example of @Vasco Grilošø doing a pretty good critique of Sinergia that they should be trying to focus on their cage-free campaigning as opposed to meal replacement. That is extremely useful. Itās particularly useful because itās something that @Carolina GalvaniāSinergia Animal can engage with, doesnāt assume Sinergia is lying, and additional reasons can then be given for why Sinergia might still want to do something etc.
Here is an example of @Vasco Grilošø doing a pretty good critique of Sinergia that they should be trying to focus on their cage-free campaigning as opposed to meal replacement. That is extremely useful. Itās particularly useful because itās something that @Carolina GalvaniāSinergia Animal can engage with [Carolina is Sinergiaās founder and executive director], doesnāt assume Sinergia is lying, and additional reasons can then be given for why Sinergia might still want to do something etc.
Thanks for noting that! For readersā context, in that comment I made 4 months ago on a post from Carolina, I estimated based on Animal Charity Evaluatorsā (ACEās) cost-effectiveness analysis of Sinergia that their meal replacement program in 2023 was 0.107 % as cost-effective as their cage-free campaigns, which suggests it would be good to move funds from the former to the latter. I also shared the comment 3.5 months ago with@LChamberlain (Sinergiaās senior development manager), and LĆŗcia Perreira (Sinergiaās impact and strategy director). Both LChamberlain and LĆŗcia said they were going to have a look, but they have not followed up. I think posting about it, sharing a draft with Sinergia before the publication, would have led to a reply, or at least a faster reply. This could have been good if it had caused Sinergia to reflect on their prioritisation earlier, and eventually change their allocation of funds.
Iāve written about this elsewhere, but it is far less constructive when you come at everything with a mindset where you assume malicious intent and find corroborating evidence.
Again, native English speakers sometimes make grammar/āspelling mistakes. Grammar in your non-native language is harder for a variety of reasons. One thing to at least consider is that words such as āin, by, on, untilā donāt often translate perfectly, or kinda mean different things depending on context. I speak English native/āfluently. When I speak in French or Spanish (where Iām proficient-fluent), I definitely make mistakes all the time, precisely because I am doing a lot of translating to/āfrom English and not thinking in the language. Hereās a simple example I came up with in English-Spanish
See how āinā and ābyā both get translated to āenā. I probably would use different phrasing than Google Translate, but it wouldnāt shock me if Sinergia people are using Google Translate (or similar), frequently. Itās exhausting to speak/āwork in your non-native language, and there are all these tiny phrasings that are difficult. Now multiply this by every row/ācolumn in the Google Sheet and every claim, etc.
Itās good that you are reviewing this work, and my offer still stands to pay you for future reviews you want to do in good faith. We need far more rigor on cost-effectiveness analyses, and EA often has a culture where we are too nice to each other to call things out and get defensive about object-level criticism. I think they have gotten better in the last couple of years, but I was fairly unhappy with ACEās cost-effectiveness methods a few years ago, and so I want their work reviewed, checked, and questioned, and perhaps even re-done. But for criticism to be taken well and without defensiveness, you canāt come out fully on the offensive, accuse people of lying and malicious intent everywhere.
ACE clearly made a mistake by leaving column W published in the public view. Iām sure they would actually give you everything unredacted if you asked and were nice about it! But you need to get out of the mindset of doing a charity ātakedownā as opposed to a charity review. It wouldnāt surprise me if many organizations are slightly optimistic in taking credit for things or are a bit generous in their counting. Correcting this is great. It gives us better info/ādata from which to make decisions. If it does turn out that some charities are way off the mark, Iām sure some will be a bit defensive but others will actually want to switch their work.
Here is an example of @Vasco Grilošø doing a pretty good critique of Sinergia that they should be trying to focus on their cage-free campaigning as opposed to meal replacement. That is extremely useful. Itās particularly useful because itās something that @Carolina GalvaniāSinergia Animal can engage with, doesnāt assume Sinergia is lying, and additional reasons can then be given for why Sinergia might still want to do something etc.
Great points, Marcus!
Thanks for noting that! For readersā context, in that comment I made 4 months ago on a post from Carolina, I estimated based on Animal Charity Evaluatorsā (ACEās) cost-effectiveness analysis of Sinergia that their meal replacement program in 2023 was 0.107 % as cost-effective as their cage-free campaigns, which suggests it would be good to move funds from the former to the latter. I also shared the comment 3.5 months ago with @LChamberlain (Sinergiaās senior development manager), and LĆŗcia Perreira (Sinergiaās impact and strategy director). Both LChamberlain and LĆŗcia said they were going to have a look, but they have not followed up. I think posting about it, sharing a draft with Sinergia before the publication, would have led to a reply, or at least a faster reply. This could have been good if it had caused Sinergia to reflect on their prioritisation earlier, and eventually change their allocation of funds.
Hi @Vasco Grilošø
Many thanks for your reminder. We have replied to your previous comment here.
Thanks, Carolina. I have followed up there too.
Hi Marcus,
Many thanks for your message and important reflections. We replied to Vasco Grilo here.