It generally looks like youâve chosen good content and done a reasonable job of providing a balanced overview of EA.
Credit goes to James Aung, Will Payne, and others (I donât know the full list) who created the curriculum! I was one of many people asked to provide feedback, but Iâm responsible for maybe 2% of the final content, if that.
Ironically, my main quibble with the content (and itâs note a huge one) is that itâs too EA-centric. For example, if I was trying to convince someone that pandemics are important Iâd show them Bill Gatesâ TED Talk on pandemics rather than an EA podcast as the former approach leverages Gatesâ and TEDâs credibility.
I think this is a very reasonable quibble. In the context of âthis person already signed up for a fellowshipâ, the additional credibility may be less important, but this is definitely a consideration that could apply to ârandom people finding the content onlineâ.
The Fellowship is for people who opt into participating in an 8 week program with an estimated 2-3 hours of preparation for each weekly session. EA.org is for people who google âeffective altruismâ. Thereâs an enormous difference between those two audiences, and the content they see should reflect that difference.
I wholly agree, and I certainly wouldnât subject our random Googlers to eight weeksâ worth of material! To clarify, by âthis contentâ I mean âsome of this content, probably a similar amount to the amount of content we now feature on EA.orgâł, rather than âall ~80 articlesâ.
The current introduction to EA, which links people to the newsletter and some other basic resources, will continue to be the first piece of content we show people. Some of the other articles are likely to be replaced by articles or sequences from the Fellowship â but with an emphasis on relatively brief and approachable content.
I certainly wouldnât subject our random Googlers to eight weeksâ worth of material! To clarify, by âthis contentâ I mean âsome of this content, probably a similar amount to the amount of content we now feature on EA.orgâł, rather than âall ~80 articlesâ.
Ah, thanks for clarifying :) The devil is always in the details, but âbrief and approachable contentâ following the same rough structure as the fellowship sounds very promising. I look forward to seeing the new site!
Credit goes to James Aung, Will Payne, and others (I donât know the full list) who created the curriculum! I was one of many people asked to provide feedback, but Iâm responsible for maybe 2% of the final content, if that.
I think this is a very reasonable quibble. In the context of âthis person already signed up for a fellowshipâ, the additional credibility may be less important, but this is definitely a consideration that could apply to ârandom people finding the content onlineâ.
I wholly agree, and I certainly wouldnât subject our random Googlers to eight weeksâ worth of material! To clarify, by âthis contentâ I mean âsome of this content, probably a similar amount to the amount of content we now feature on EA.orgâł, rather than âall ~80 articlesâ.
The current introduction to EA, which links people to the newsletter and some other basic resources, will continue to be the first piece of content we show people. Some of the other articles are likely to be replaced by articles or sequences from the Fellowship â but with an emphasis on relatively brief and approachable content.
Ah, thanks for clarifying :) The devil is always in the details, but âbrief and approachable contentâ following the same rough structure as the fellowship sounds very promising. I look forward to seeing the new site!