I’ll be giving most of my donations ($25,000+) to GiveWell this year, with a smattering going to other global health charities (~$5000 split between AMF, GiveDirectly, Development Media International, and a few others). This amounts to roughly 22% of my income.
This plan isn’t meant to be optimized for direct impact. Because I only give a modest amount, I expect most of my impact to come from influencing others, so I try to optimize for “giving in a way that I’m excited to share”.
Specifically, almost all of this year’s giving comes from my success in tournament-level Magic: the Gathering, as well as revenues from streaming and exhibition events that followed from those tournaments. I publicized my choice to donate half of my tournament/streaming revenue, and I assumed that this would be most motivating/inspiring if I gave to charities with clear paths to impact which my viewers could easily understand.
(Of course, I alsobelieve that these charities are excellent, and I gave them heavy support before I ever became a streamer.)
So far, I’ve had modest success in building leverage through public donations. Someone claims to have matched my GiveWell donation (I haven’t verified this myself, but James Snowden did thank them, which is something), and one EAGxAsia-Pacific attendee told me they discovered EA at least in part because they saw me discuss it on Magic streams.
I also give $100/month to the EA Infrastructure Fund, partly because I think meta work is the highest-leverage way to donate and partly so I can have the direct experience of being an EA Funds donor. Because I work for CEA, I’d like to “eat my own dog food” (use the products I work on) in a few different ways.
I respect cluelessness arguments enough that I’ve removed “strongly” from “strongly believe” in my response; I was just in an enthusiastic mood.
My giving to charities focused on short-term impact (and GiveWell in particular) is motivated by a few things:
I believe that my work currently generates much more value for CEA than the amount I donate to other charities, which means that almost all of my impact is likely of a meta/longtermist variety. But I am morally uncertain, and place enough credence on moral theories emphasizing short-term value that I want at least a fraction of my work to impact people who are alive today.
Around the time I joined CEA, I had been rapidly becoming more focused on the long term; had I taken some other non-EA job, I think that all or almost all of my donations would be going to meta causes as a way of getting long-term leverage. Instead, I get to hedge a bit with my donations.
Personal/emotional factors. I sleep a bit better at night knowing that I’ve used my unusually lucky circumstances to provide something good for people who have been unusually unlucky. (In theory, I should also sleep worse because I’ve deprived longtermist projects of funding, but that isn’t how my brain works for some reason.)
Support for an especially well-run organization. I think that the quality of work done at GiveWell (from their charity reports and shared spreadsheets to their Mistakes page) puts them in a class of their own within EA, and I think that having orgs like this is a good thing for EA as a whole; to paraphrase Thomas Callaghan, “quality has a quality all its own.” To the extent that GiveWell is a flagship org within the broader EA movement, one which will be the first introduction to EA for many people, I think it’s good on a meta level for them to have more resources even if the marginal impact of those resources is lower than it might be for newer/smaller orgs.
I should clarify that my GiveWell donation will be going towards their operations, not the Maximum Impact Fund. If this helps them e.g. advertise more widely, I think that’s a solid meta investment.
This view is informed largely by my own experience; I would have taken much longer to enter EA (if I’d entered at all) had GiveWell not been around to show me that “yes, this movement can produce high-quality research in a way you can actually verify, and it’s obvious that our charities crush much of the competition dollar-for-dollar.”
I should also clarify that, by “excellent”, I don’t so much mean “extremely high impact” as “high standard of quality in how the organization is run”.
Of course, that makes me Charity Navigator, so perhaps I should choose a different word.
Anyway, I’ve more than filled my “short-term bucket” for this year and next; my future winnings will probably go to smaller projects (if I have time to evaluate them) or other potential “flagship” orgs like 80,000 Hours—which now seems to be the most common entry point into EA for people, serving the role that GiveWell did back when I got into EA. But this will, as before, depend on how well I think I can pitch them to a non-EA audience.
As for replying more directly to the arguments you linked: my views combine a bit of Khorton, a bit of both Aidanresponses...
...and also, a lot of credence in most of those arguments. That’s why I work a meta job, spend some of my free time on meta projects, and advise people toward meta giving when I can—including the foundation I work with, which recently made its first meta grant after decades of exclusively near-term giving.
(By the way, this was a good question! I didn’t even hint at this stuff in my original answer, and I’m glad for the chance to clarify my beliefs.)
So far, I’ve had modest success in building leverage through public donations …
That’s really cool!
I assumed that this would be most motivating/inspiring if I gave to charities with clear paths to impact which my viewers could easily understand.
I share that impression, but also feel pretty uncertain about it, in particular if one actually thinks a cause area other than global health & dev is more pressing. In that case, it might be that public donations and framings focused on those other cause areas—or with less focus on any one cause area—would lead to fewer new EAs/effective givers, but a higher number focused on the more pressing cause areas. And that could be more valuable overall (depending on the details).
The reasons this alternative approach could lead to a higher number of new people focused on the more pressing cause areas are:
some decently common types of people (e.g., animal lovers + “proto-rationalists”) will probably tend to find donations & framings focused on a cause area other than global health & dev more motivating/convincing
people who could end up going in any direction could be nudged one way or another by the first messages they see
Perhaps your efforts are premised on not thinking a cause area other than global health & dev is more pressing? (I think that’d be reasonable, though I personally think animal welfare and especially longtermism are more pressing. I only really make this comment at all because you imply that you think that giving to GiveWell and its recommended charities, while highly impactful, isn’t “optimized for direct impact”.)
When I discuss EA in public, I try to focus more on general principles (“some charities are better than others”, “it’s important to think about all the ways you could help”) than specifically advocating for global dev work, though the latter does happen too.
And if someone sends me a private question about giving (which happens a lot now that I’ve made a big deal about it), I give similarly broad advice, and will often refer people to e.g. 80K’s Key Ideas page.
However, I’ve found over the course of the year that people seem not to care as much about the specific work of the charities I support as about the idea of doing something altruistic at all. In 2021, my public advocacy is likely to lean more meta/longtermist, though I’m not sure about the specifics.
Thanks for posting this, Michael!
I’ll be giving most of my donations ($25,000+) to GiveWell this year, with a smattering going to other global health charities (~$5000 split between AMF, GiveDirectly, Development Media International, and a few others). This amounts to roughly 22% of my income.
This plan isn’t meant to be optimized for direct impact. Because I only give a modest amount, I expect most of my impact to come from influencing others, so I try to optimize for “giving in a way that I’m excited to share”.
Specifically, almost all of this year’s giving comes from my success in tournament-level Magic: the Gathering, as well as revenues from streaming and exhibition events that followed from those tournaments. I publicized my choice to donate half of my tournament/streaming revenue, and I assumed that this would be most motivating/inspiring if I gave to charities with clear paths to impact which my viewers could easily understand.
(Of course, I also believe that these charities are excellent, and I gave them heavy support before I ever became a streamer.)
So far, I’ve had modest success in building leverage through public donations. Someone claims to have matched my GiveWell donation (I haven’t verified this myself, but James Snowden did thank them, which is something), and one EAGxAsia-Pacific attendee told me they discovered EA at least in part because they saw me discuss it on Magic streams.
I also give $100/month to the EA Infrastructure Fund, partly because I think meta work is the highest-leverage way to donate and partly so I can have the direct experience of being an EA Funds donor. Because I work for CEA, I’d like to “eat my own dog food” (use the products I work on) in a few different ways.
I’d be curious to hear why you think that these charities are excellent; eg I’d be curious for your reply to the arguments here.
I respect cluelessness arguments enough that I’ve removed “strongly” from “strongly believe” in my response; I was just in an enthusiastic mood.
My giving to charities focused on short-term impact (and GiveWell in particular) is motivated by a few things:
I believe that my work currently generates much more value for CEA than the amount I donate to other charities, which means that almost all of my impact is likely of a meta/longtermist variety. But I am morally uncertain, and place enough credence on moral theories emphasizing short-term value that I want at least a fraction of my work to impact people who are alive today.
Around the time I joined CEA, I had been rapidly becoming more focused on the long term; had I taken some other non-EA job, I think that all or almost all of my donations would be going to meta causes as a way of getting long-term leverage. Instead, I get to hedge a bit with my donations.
Personal/emotional factors. I sleep a bit better at night knowing that I’ve used my unusually lucky circumstances to provide something good for people who have been unusually unlucky. (In theory, I should also sleep worse because I’ve deprived longtermist projects of funding, but that isn’t how my brain works for some reason.)
Support for an especially well-run organization. I think that the quality of work done at GiveWell (from their charity reports and shared spreadsheets to their Mistakes page) puts them in a class of their own within EA, and I think that having orgs like this is a good thing for EA as a whole; to paraphrase Thomas Callaghan, “quality has a quality all its own.” To the extent that GiveWell is a flagship org within the broader EA movement, one which will be the first introduction to EA for many people, I think it’s good on a meta level for them to have more resources even if the marginal impact of those resources is lower than it might be for newer/smaller orgs.
I should clarify that my GiveWell donation will be going towards their operations, not the Maximum Impact Fund. If this helps them e.g. advertise more widely, I think that’s a solid meta investment.
This view is informed largely by my own experience; I would have taken much longer to enter EA (if I’d entered at all) had GiveWell not been around to show me that “yes, this movement can produce high-quality research in a way you can actually verify, and it’s obvious that our charities crush much of the competition dollar-for-dollar.”
I should also clarify that, by “excellent”, I don’t so much mean “extremely high impact” as “high standard of quality in how the organization is run”.
Of course, that makes me Charity Navigator, so perhaps I should choose a different word.
Anyway, I’ve more than filled my “short-term bucket” for this year and next; my future winnings will probably go to smaller projects (if I have time to evaluate them) or other potential “flagship” orgs like 80,000 Hours—which now seems to be the most common entry point into EA for people, serving the role that GiveWell did back when I got into EA. But this will, as before, depend on how well I think I can pitch them to a non-EA audience.
As for replying more directly to the arguments you linked: my views combine a bit of Khorton, a bit of both Aidan responses...
...and also, a lot of credence in most of those arguments. That’s why I work a meta job, spend some of my free time on meta projects, and advise people toward meta giving when I can—including the foundation I work with, which recently made its first meta grant after decades of exclusively near-term giving.
(By the way, this was a good question! I didn’t even hint at this stuff in my original answer, and I’m glad for the chance to clarify my beliefs.)
That’s really cool!
I share that impression, but also feel pretty uncertain about it, in particular if one actually thinks a cause area other than global health & dev is more pressing. In that case, it might be that public donations and framings focused on those other cause areas—or with less focus on any one cause area—would lead to fewer new EAs/effective givers, but a higher number focused on the more pressing cause areas. And that could be more valuable overall (depending on the details).
The reasons this alternative approach could lead to a higher number of new people focused on the more pressing cause areas are:
some decently common types of people (e.g., animal lovers + “proto-rationalists”) will probably tend to find donations & framings focused on a cause area other than global health & dev more motivating/convincing
people who could end up going in any direction could be nudged one way or another by the first messages they see
Perhaps your efforts are premised on not thinking a cause area other than global health & dev is more pressing? (I think that’d be reasonable, though I personally think animal welfare and especially longtermism are more pressing. I only really make this comment at all because you imply that you think that giving to GiveWell and its recommended charities, while highly impactful, isn’t “optimized for direct impact”.)
When I discuss EA in public, I try to focus more on general principles (“some charities are better than others”, “it’s important to think about all the ways you could help”) than specifically advocating for global dev work, though the latter does happen too.
And if someone sends me a private question about giving (which happens a lot now that I’ve made a big deal about it), I give similarly broad advice, and will often refer people to e.g. 80K’s Key Ideas page.
However, I’ve found over the course of the year that people seem not to care as much about the specific work of the charities I support as about the idea of doing something altruistic at all. In 2021, my public advocacy is likely to lean more meta/longtermist, though I’m not sure about the specifics.