Equally, though, lots of students are passionate about social justice, making a difference etc. and can be attracted to EA precisely by talking about giving.
Yup, agree that giving can be attracting. I’m not sure it’s equally attracting at universities though, based on what I mentioned earlier.
Obviously anecdotal evidence is weaker than some sort of systematic evidence but if you have a theory that is plausibly true, aligns with common sense and then is supported by a lot individual cases, that seems enough to think this is ‘signal’ rather than coincidence.
I agree it’s totally plausible that giving deepens involvement! Where I might be more hesitant is in whether this plausibility should make us confident. I don’t know if I can point to a single source on where my intuition here is coming from, but my impression is there’s many cases across social sciences (including RCTs on effective giving) where using plausibility, common sense, and anecdotes to make causal inferences will lead us to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe we can agree that groups should test multiple kinds of programming and then choose how much of various kinds of programming to have based on the results?
I’d challenge the idea that the majority of students are charity sceptics.
Agreed—I’m not sure I made claims about the majority of students. [Edit: looking back at my earlier comment, I see how that could have been inferred—I should have been clearer.] I also agree that this significantly limits the extent of the downside.
I’m surprised a) that you haven’t seen the result of any donations and b) that you’re sceptical that is has shorted feedback loops than a career change. [...] If you donate $10 to AMF today, you’ll be able to see the bednet distribution you funded in a much shorter timescale. [...] Maybe this changes depending on what you donate to?
I think that’s it—the charities I donated to didn’t have that nice feature. Good to learn that some do!
Candidly, I think opportunity costs are frequently overstated.
I’m sympathetic to this—I suspect it’s often overstated but still significant. (I think the attentional costs are especially significant: taking your example about a presentation on AI safety, if the call to action switches from just careers to careers and donations, that’s a ~50% dilution of how much attention is being directed to careers.)
are most EA groups genuinely so maxed out that they couldn’t weave giving into their existing programming or even run an extra session?
Maybe just the especially intense ones :)
I’m not convinced they add up to a really robust argument to neglect effective giving entirely, though.
Also agree here—my sense is they add up to an argument that should make us hesitate about giving being “a core part of pretty much any strategy for EA movement building.”
Thanks Mauricio—I think we are in roughly the same place here :-)
I especially like the idea of groups testing outreach and rebalancing on the results.
To be clear, I would expect most student groups to continue to prioritise non-giving outreach and I think that’s great—it’s likely impactful and it offers variety, and an entry point for low income students, which is super important.
Our concern is the number of groups doing no giving outreach at all. If every group did their existing programming, but added a giving session each semester (or a pledge drive), we’d be delighted!
Thanks for this!
Yup, agree that giving can be attracting. I’m not sure it’s equally attracting at universities though, based on what I mentioned earlier.
I agree it’s totally plausible that giving deepens involvement! Where I might be more hesitant is in whether this plausibility should make us confident. I don’t know if I can point to a single source on where my intuition here is coming from, but my impression is there’s many cases across social sciences (including RCTs on effective giving) where using plausibility, common sense, and anecdotes to make causal inferences will lead us to mistaken conclusions.
Maybe we can agree that groups should test multiple kinds of programming and then choose how much of various kinds of programming to have based on the results?
Agreed—I’m not sure I made claims about the majority of students. [Edit: looking back at my earlier comment, I see how that could have been inferred—I should have been clearer.] I also agree that this significantly limits the extent of the downside.
I think that’s it—the charities I donated to didn’t have that nice feature. Good to learn that some do!
I’m sympathetic to this—I suspect it’s often overstated but still significant. (I think the attentional costs are especially significant: taking your example about a presentation on AI safety, if the call to action switches from just careers to careers and donations, that’s a ~50% dilution of how much attention is being directed to careers.)
Maybe just the especially intense ones :)
Also agree here—my sense is they add up to an argument that should make us hesitate about giving being “a core part of pretty much any strategy for EA movement building.”
Thanks Mauricio—I think we are in roughly the same place here :-)
I especially like the idea of groups testing outreach and rebalancing on the results.
To be clear, I would expect most student groups to continue to prioritise non-giving outreach and I think that’s great—it’s likely impactful and it offers variety, and an entry point for low income students, which is super important.
Our concern is the number of groups doing no giving outreach at all. If every group did their existing programming, but added a giving session each semester (or a pledge drive), we’d be delighted!