Thanks so much for this comment, Robert—I appreciate the engagement.
It’s interesting to hear what mistakes you see, and what you’ve experienced as working better.
It sounds like you’re really considering who your audience is – something that I think is crucial. For example, you don’t assume that people (especially those not involved in EA) will be sold by more philosophical arguments. These arguments can work for some, but definitely not everyone. I also agree that having a positive reputation (e.g., being seen as credible and honest) can attract people. Plus, it sounds like you’re cultivating some supportive and cooperative relationships with others which is fantastic.
I think I have a slightly different take on the role of behaviour in your theory of change – I still see it as being quite central. To me, the impact we have always comes back to behaviour. You may not be using the more philosophical arguments to encourage donations, but it sounds like you’re still trying to get people to support the movement (which can involve some level of behaviour) by setting a positive example—a different technique. I also think that getting the charities themselves to be more impactful (Element #2 of your framework) also involves some important behaviour change elements. E.g., The charities need to be aware that they could increase their impact, be motivated to do it, have the resources to do it and so on. Definitely open to hearing push back on any of that!
It sounds like you’ve thought through your approach a lot, Robert—thanks again for sharing.
Thanks so much for this comment, Robert—I appreciate the engagement.
It’s interesting to hear what mistakes you see, and what you’ve experienced as working better.
It sounds like you’re really considering who your audience is – something that I think is crucial. For example, you don’t assume that people (especially those not involved in EA) will be sold by more philosophical arguments. These arguments can work for some, but definitely not everyone. I also agree that having a positive reputation (e.g., being seen as credible and honest) can attract people. Plus, it sounds like you’re cultivating some supportive and cooperative relationships with others which is fantastic.
I think I have a slightly different take on the role of behaviour in your theory of change – I still see it as being quite central. To me, the impact we have always comes back to behaviour. You may not be using the more philosophical arguments to encourage donations, but it sounds like you’re still trying to get people to support the movement (which can involve some level of behaviour) by setting a positive example—a different technique. I also think that getting the charities themselves to be more impactful (Element #2 of your framework) also involves some important behaviour change elements. E.g., The charities need to be aware that they could increase their impact, be motivated to do it, have the resources to do it and so on. Definitely open to hearing push back on any of that!
It sounds like you’ve thought through your approach a lot, Robert—thanks again for sharing.