I think #1 is a good point but disagree with #2 and #3, at least in many average cases.
For #2, your example of 80K is the case in point. It is hard for me personally to imagine that some of their success isn’t attributable to the fact that their name so cleverly fits with their mission.
For #3, I see EA orgs spent inordinate amounts of time doing name selection when they should be getting on with their work. I think this is a symptom of a more general issue of EAs analyzing way too long before pulling the trigger. At Charity Entrepreneurship, we spent 1 three hour session coming up with names for our orgs and that felt like the right amount and we landed with “High Impact Professionals” for my current org. I likely can’t pivot to Famine Relief, but if I want to to that I’ll probably make another org.
I think #1 is a good point but disagree with #2 and #3, at least in many average cases.
For #2, your example of 80K is the case in point. It is hard for me personally to imagine that some of their success isn’t attributable to the fact that their name so cleverly fits with their mission.
For #3, I see EA orgs spent inordinate amounts of time doing name selection when they should be getting on with their work. I think this is a symptom of a more general issue of EAs analyzing way too long before pulling the trigger. At Charity Entrepreneurship, we spent 1 three hour session coming up with names for our orgs and that felt like the right amount and we landed with “High Impact Professionals” for my current org. I likely can’t pivot to Famine Relief, but if I want to to that I’ll probably make another org.