Thanks for your work on Effective Thesis, and for this post. I haven’t interacted with Effective Thesis myself, but it strikes me as the sort of thing that should exist and that fills an important gap, so I’m glad you’ve created this initiative to fill that gap. I also found the taxonomy in “Other interventions with the same goal” surprisingly interesting.
Some questions and thoughts came to mind, which I’ll split into a few comments.
He said that Effective Thesis got him involved in EA which he hadn’t heard about before and also helped him with specific topic choice (counterfactually 40 %).
Do you mean he estimated a 40% chance he would’ve chosen the same topic anyway? Or a 40% chance he would’ve heard about EA later anyway? Or something else?
A comparison to the previous report (August 2018 - January 2019) would suggest that in 2019 there were fewer people applying from Europe (by 13 %).
Were there actually fewerpeople applying from Europe? Or more people from elsewhere, such that the proportion from Europe fell? One story sounds like some degree of shrinking, whereas the other sounds like growth and diversification.
I would expect there to be quite a lot of research-talented people (especially in non-English speaking countries because of the language and geographic barriers) who would be good to reach out to and who could produce very good research later on. I would expect outreach to these people to be significantly more neglected in comparison with outreach to people from prestigious unis, and thus it might be effective to focus on them.
What kinds of “outreach” are you suggesting are neglected for those people, compared to people from prestigious unis? Things like EA outreach in general? Or things more similar to Effective Thesis? I would’ve thought there are few other things very much like Effective Thesis anywhere, including at prestigious unis, except I guess for students who can get positions at places like GPI.
I would say the goal of Effective Thesis is “influencing which research is generated” (in comparison with e.g. “improving science as a whole”).
Unimportant point that came to mind: This seems reminiscent of the idea of advancing differential progress, rather than just any progress (in the sense of developments or advancements, whether or not they’re morally good not necessarily morally good).
Thanks for your work on Effective Thesis, and for this post. I haven’t interacted with Effective Thesis myself, but it strikes me as the sort of thing that should exist and that fills an important gap, so I’m glad you’ve created this initiative to fill that gap. I also found the taxonomy in “Other interventions with the same goal” surprisingly interesting.
Some questions and thoughts came to mind, which I’ll split into a few comments.
Do you mean he estimated a 40% chance he would’ve chosen the same topic anyway? Or a 40% chance he would’ve heard about EA later anyway? Or something else?
Were there actually fewer people applying from Europe? Or more people from elsewhere, such that the proportion from Europe fell? One story sounds like some degree of shrinking, whereas the other sounds like growth and diversification.
What kinds of “outreach” are you suggesting are neglected for those people, compared to people from prestigious unis? Things like EA outreach in general? Or things more similar to Effective Thesis? I would’ve thought there are few other things very much like Effective Thesis anywhere, including at prestigious unis, except I guess for students who can get positions at places like GPI.
Unimportant point that came to mind: This seems reminiscent of the idea of advancing differential progress, rather than just any progress (in the sense of developments or advancements, whether or not they’re morally good not necessarily morally good).