I’ve realized post writing this may be a bit nitpicky but leaving it up for now ..
As usual maybe I’m missing something obvious, but it seems a little strange to me that an institution should post recommendations from staff. Why should I put any more weight on a recommendation from an OpenPhil staff rather than any other EA person who had thought a lot about this?
My initial feelings are that I would prefer
Staff to post individually their ideas as themselves independently (or semi independently) of their org.
Follow the CEA lead where each individual staff posted where they donated their money and a little on why. I really liked this format as it showed both skin in the game and a diverse range of perspectives.
EDIT: have realized this post isn’t so different from that.
I suppose I’m asking what’s the benefit of this format over individual recommendations?
I’m an OP staffer who helped to put the post together. Thanks for the nitpicks!
I suppose I’m asking what’s the benefit of this format over individual recommendations?
I see the main benefit as convenience. If I’d asked OP staff to write individual Forum posts, I’d have gotten less interest than I did with “send me a few sentences and you can be part of a larger post”. Writing an entire post is a bigger hurdle, and I think some people would feel weird writing a post just a few sentences long (even if the alternative was “no post”).
Why should I put any more weight on a recommendation from an OpenPhil staff rather than any other EA person who had thought a lot about this?
I don’t necessarily think you should.
But I personally put at least moderate weight on recommendations from people in research roles who’ve thought a lot about an issue, inside or outside of OP. (I like the GiveWell “where our people give” posts for the same reason!) I wish we had more charity recommendations from such people. And at OP, we’ve heard from enough people who find these posts valuable that we thought it was worth putting another one together.
Thanks for the interesting recommendations.
I’ve realized post writing this may be a bit nitpicky but leaving it up for now ..
As usual maybe I’m missing something obvious, but it seems a little strange to me that an institution should post recommendations from staff. Why should I put any more weight on a recommendation from an OpenPhil staff rather than any other EA person who had thought a lot about this?
My initial feelings are that I would prefer
Staff to post individually their ideas as themselves independently (or semi independently) of their org.
Follow the CEA lead where each individual staff posted where they donated their money and a little on why. I really liked this format as it showed both skin in the game and a diverse range of perspectives.
EDIT: have realized this post isn’t so different from that.
I suppose I’m asking what’s the benefit of this format over individual recommendations?
I’m an OP staffer who helped to put the post together. Thanks for the nitpicks!
I see the main benefit as convenience. If I’d asked OP staff to write individual Forum posts, I’d have gotten less interest than I did with “send me a few sentences and you can be part of a larger post”. Writing an entire post is a bigger hurdle, and I think some people would feel weird writing a post just a few sentences long (even if the alternative was “no post”).
I don’t necessarily think you should.
But I personally put at least moderate weight on recommendations from people in research roles who’ve thought a lot about an issue, inside or outside of OP. (I like the GiveWell “where our people give” posts for the same reason!) I wish we had more charity recommendations from such people. And at OP, we’ve heard from enough people who find these posts valuable that we thought it was worth putting another one together.
Thanks nice one appreciate the reply