As I see it, EA is not a single consensus, different individuals reach very different conclusions about resource allocation, as you can see e.g. in the current âWhere are you donating this year, and why?â thread. Or by comparing Founders Pledge The Global Health and Development Fund Grants with GiveWellâs All Grants Fund. Also, it seems to me that there are many ideas that people are passionate about, but are often bottlenecked by a lack of implementers (i.e. people willing and able to turn those ideas into concrete projects). When I see a successful new EA project, it never seems to happen because âEAâ reached the conclusion that the project was important and allocated resources to it, but because some individuals developed a theory of change and worked to make it happen.
You might be interested in:
The recent Cause Exploration Prizes, launched from Open Philanthropy to find ideas for the best ways to use our resources
The excellent post Big List of Cause Candidates
Pitching the idea to https://ââwww.charityentrepreneurship.com/ââresearch (I donât know what the process is, I think you can just mail them and ask), if itâs about starting a new org
As I see it, EA is not a single consensus, different individuals reach very different conclusions about resource allocation, as you can see e.g. in the current âWhere are you donating this year, and why?â thread. Or by comparing Founders Pledge The Global Health and Development Fund Grants with GiveWellâs All Grants Fund.
Also, it seems to me that there are many ideas that people are passionate about, but are often bottlenecked by a lack of implementers (i.e. people willing and able to turn those ideas into concrete projects).
When I see a successful new EA project, it never seems to happen because âEAâ reached the conclusion that the project was important and allocated resources to it, but because some individuals developed a theory of change and worked to make it happen.