I am also enrolling in the course for critical feedback. I will err on the side of giving you too much critique in a too blunt way.
You can save lives without medical training:
The DATA button is not cool for teenagers. The word, the font, the color, the common-for-working-professionals placement, the uninteractivity.
TL;DR is not cool for teenagers either. It is more like for aspiring PhD students.
The person on the picture seems too old, almost like a caring mother, rather than a cool teenager. It may be because of the (delighted/entertained/almost saying you should be kind but it does not matter) shape/expression of mouth and the conservative outfit.
The font on the news is not official. That can be considered offensive by practically adult persons. They may not want ‘kid’ material. But, cool adult.
“You can likely do a heroic amount of good through earning to give in any job.” Should not be the first thing that the person reads, even if the next one was ‘… but it can be equally good if you continue to learn about ways to do good’ - even if you think that ETG and donating to GW is your ultimate objective, teenagers may enjoy more directly participatory opportunities for real-world heroism
The content of the TL;DR is discouraging—these are teenagers not attention-constrained decisionmakers. Possibly, something that would invite the teenagers to explore more, how to be that cool person who is just more cool than the people in the news being interviewed.
Local hero for me seems for young teenagers or pre-teens, those who like to be taken care of by parents before the stage of rejection of some practices. ‘A hero’ or some actual meaningful and diversity inclusive name can be more appropriate for older teenagers.
Who saves more lives?
I argue that there is a limit to ameliorating biases, such as race and gender. There should be some inclusion of traditionally privileged groups, while the identity should be portrayed to not play a role in the area of contest. So, if you have a female or a gender non-conforming person of color on the initial picture, then you could consider including a picture with, for example, a male of color and a white female.
The citations ([1], [2] in superscript) are again something for PhD and other academic writing enthusiasts. Even privileged teenagers can enjoy whooop scroll up and back.
QALY/DALY should be explained as something that makes the participants smart! … Once they understand the definition they can tell their friends—but, how much QALY does it give you… hmm seems cost-ineffective. Hmmm oh, you go by WALY sure, so that’s why you enjoy this [unhealthy product]
I would make the table into a story where one person is trying to look really cool (and attractive due to their impactful benevolence!) but the other is smart—but then, it is complex—you do not know which one is better and maybe an opinion is sought (long response—graded as great opinion in any case)
A nerdy aside aside—it can be debated whether the marginal cost of distributing drugs donated by non-EA actors, such as pharmaceutical companies should be considered or the total cost (e. g. including the price of R&D and/or manufacturing)
I chose the first option, Daniela, and it said not quite. But there are no right and wrong answers! … Unless you are trying to impose an authority to make participants accept something they would otherwise hesitate to, e. g. due to different norms, or generally firmly suggest that it is ok to [follow some type of thinking, such as openmindedness] then I would avoid any wrong answers where the answer is not clear (such as reading comprehension or a math problem)
It is really focused on ETG. I give you an example: Daniela has been working as a nutritionist. She knows everything about micro and macro nutrients and how to tailor them to people to be healthy. She helped some organization, such as One Acre Fund, to advise people on what crops to grow to prevent adult and child malnutrition. Thus, families thrive. She would not be able to do this were she an engineer. She does not donate anything. Elizabeth knows nothing about nutrition besides that fast food is probably not great for you in excess. But, she’s read very convincing evidence on vitamin A supplementation. She donates funding because it is well-known that vitamin A is lacking and not locally available so it needs to be given as a very cheap powder/droplet. Who is saving more lives?
There are some quite lengthy articles about EA.
Do you want to just let people opine on the filosofix drowning child though experiment and read the story about the cost-ineffective banker who works at a soup kitchen? (assert understanding of of course one would not let people drown and then when one is rich they will not go to soup kitchen [be cost-effective]
How not to throw away your best shot
The image may be interpreted as containing historical inaccuracies. In this context, perhaps racial diversity was different. The shape of the mouth is again child-like kind entertained ‘does not matter.’
This course may be actually appropriate for privileged parents of children who are ‘too spoiled’? The parent will benefit from the child understanding global need and thus becoming ‘less spoiled’ while the parent could, if they find it beneficial to them, donate some funding to charity and become interested in impact focus?
The use of “trash” in the image can be considered offensive to couples in general or the specific one pictured.
‘How much time you have left’ seems appropriate for older privileged parents unless it can be avoided
I would not include immediately on the same page the Aleya Cotra’s career example: the participant should be left thinking about the image: sure, videogames do not pay off … (maybe include wow, we have more impactful resources for you—which actually resemble videogames as we are impartial—on the next page)
The takeaways bag is something one would seek to reject. So, include takeaways that one should reject later but are confirming some biases at this point while being vague
I finished my testing here.
If you want to include additional design, thesebuttons may be cool for some teenagers
FYI I found this quite difficult to parse, the grammar was fairly unclear in places. I’m sure there’s great advice here, but it would be helpful if it was a bit easier to read :)
Thank you. Let me try to rephrase my main points. I emphasize that these are just my perceptions and should not be understood as an objective critique.
The course is focused on ETG while other ways of making impact are relatively deemphasized
The course participants are not inspired to explore further but given a solution which is ETG
The style of writing, such as the use of TL;DR, footnotes, and summaries with main points may be inappropriate for teenagers, because they may prefer less professional/academic and more informal/interactive style
Some pictures show a person that may not inspire an adolescent, because the person resembles a kind parent rather than a person who outperforms parents
Biases in images are sometimes ameliorated in a way which can be interpreted as exclusive of traditionally empowered groups or introducing factual inaccuracies
I suggest that this course is offered to privileged parents of children who they seek to motivate for impact
So cool!
I am also enrolling in the course for critical feedback. I will err on the side of giving you too much critique in a too blunt way.
You can save lives without medical training:
The DATA button is not cool for teenagers. The word, the font, the color, the common-for-working-professionals placement, the uninteractivity.
TL;DR is not cool for teenagers either. It is more like for aspiring PhD students.
The person on the picture seems too old, almost like a caring mother, rather than a cool teenager. It may be because of the (delighted/entertained/almost saying you should be kind but it does not matter) shape/expression of mouth and the conservative outfit.
The font on the news is not official. That can be considered offensive by practically adult persons. They may not want ‘kid’ material. But, cool adult.
“You can likely do a heroic amount of good through earning to give in any job.” Should not be the first thing that the person reads, even if the next one was ‘… but it can be equally good if you continue to learn about ways to do good’ - even if you think that ETG and donating to GW is your ultimate objective, teenagers may enjoy more directly participatory opportunities for real-world heroism
The content of the TL;DR is discouraging—these are teenagers not attention-constrained decisionmakers. Possibly, something that would invite the teenagers to explore more, how to be that cool person who is just more cool than the people in the news being interviewed.
Local hero for me seems for young teenagers or pre-teens, those who like to be taken care of by parents before the stage of rejection of some practices. ‘A hero’ or some actual meaningful and diversity inclusive name can be more appropriate for older teenagers.
Who saves more lives?
I argue that there is a limit to ameliorating biases, such as race and gender. There should be some inclusion of traditionally privileged groups, while the identity should be portrayed to not play a role in the area of contest. So, if you have a female or a gender non-conforming person of color on the initial picture, then you could consider including a picture with, for example, a male of color and a white female.
The citations ([1], [2] in superscript) are again something for PhD and other academic writing enthusiasts. Even privileged teenagers can enjoy whooop scroll up and back.
QALY/DALY should be explained as something that makes the participants smart! … Once they understand the definition they can tell their friends—but, how much QALY does it give you… hmm seems cost-ineffective. Hmmm oh, you go by WALY sure, so that’s why you enjoy this [unhealthy product]
I would make the table into a story where one person is trying to look really cool (and attractive due to their impactful benevolence!) but the other is smart—but then, it is complex—you do not know which one is better and maybe an opinion is sought (long response—graded as great opinion in any case)
A nerdy aside aside—it can be debated whether the marginal cost of distributing drugs donated by non-EA actors, such as pharmaceutical companies should be considered or the total cost (e. g. including the price of R&D and/or manufacturing)
I chose the first option, Daniela, and it said not quite. But there are no right and wrong answers! … Unless you are trying to impose an authority to make participants accept something they would otherwise hesitate to, e. g. due to different norms, or generally firmly suggest that it is ok to [follow some type of thinking, such as openmindedness] then I would avoid any wrong answers where the answer is not clear (such as reading comprehension or a math problem)
It is really focused on ETG. I give you an example: Daniela has been working as a nutritionist. She knows everything about micro and macro nutrients and how to tailor them to people to be healthy. She helped some organization, such as One Acre Fund, to advise people on what crops to grow to prevent adult and child malnutrition. Thus, families thrive. She would not be able to do this were she an engineer. She does not donate anything. Elizabeth knows nothing about nutrition besides that fast food is probably not great for you in excess. But, she’s read very convincing evidence on vitamin A supplementation. She donates funding because it is well-known that vitamin A is lacking and not locally available so it needs to be given as a very cheap powder/droplet. Who is saving more lives?
There are some quite lengthy articles about EA.
Do you want to just let people opine on the filosofix drowning child though experiment and read the story about the cost-ineffective banker who works at a soup kitchen? (assert understanding of of course one would not let people drown and then when one is rich they will not go to soup kitchen [be cost-effective]
How not to throw away your best shot
The image may be interpreted as containing historical inaccuracies. In this context, perhaps racial diversity was different. The shape of the mouth is again child-like kind entertained ‘does not matter.’
This course may be actually appropriate for privileged parents of children who are ‘too spoiled’? The parent will benefit from the child understanding global need and thus becoming ‘less spoiled’ while the parent could, if they find it beneficial to them, donate some funding to charity and become interested in impact focus?
The use of “trash” in the image can be considered offensive to couples in general or the specific one pictured.
‘How much time you have left’ seems appropriate for older privileged parents unless it can be avoided
I would not include immediately on the same page the Aleya Cotra’s career example: the participant should be left thinking about the image: sure, videogames do not pay off … (maybe include wow, we have more impactful resources for you—which actually resemble videogames as we are impartial—on the next page)
The takeaways bag is something one would seek to reject. So, include takeaways that one should reject later but are confirming some biases at this point while being vague
I finished my testing here.
If you want to include additional design, these buttons may be cool for some teenagers
FYI I found this quite difficult to parse, the grammar was fairly unclear in places. I’m sure there’s great advice here, but it would be helpful if it was a bit easier to read :)
Thank you. Let me try to rephrase my main points. I emphasize that these are just my perceptions and should not be understood as an objective critique.
The course is focused on ETG while other ways of making impact are relatively deemphasized
The course participants are not inspired to explore further but given a solution which is ETG
The style of writing, such as the use of TL;DR, footnotes, and summaries with main points may be inappropriate for teenagers, because they may prefer less professional/academic and more informal/interactive style
Some pictures show a person that may not inspire an adolescent, because the person resembles a kind parent rather than a person who outperforms parents
Biases in images are sometimes ameliorated in a way which can be interpreted as exclusive of traditionally empowered groups or introducing factual inaccuracies
I suggest that this course is offered to privileged parents of children who they seek to motivate for impact