Yes that’s valuable, but I’d say it’s pretty easy to synthesize their cause priorities with founders own motivations. For example, keep the list going for every new round, so there’s 20-30 choices, all just as worthy as they were last year. Two orgs coming at one cause with different approaches is great. This same problem exists throughout EA when we imagine we can truly figure out what needs to be done based on the ITN framework. It’s a great framework, I love it, but the reality of making impact in the real world in a cause you’ve prioritized is that there are infinite angles to approach each one. Between two broad approaches are infinite degrees of adjustment to approach it. The world is too big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will take. To imagine researchers in a room in the U.K., not in the field, having no personal knowledge of the cause overall and specific challenges on the ground, to be able to figure it out on paper is an intellectual arrogance. The world is too big, you can’t figure it out. So be practical and let talent guide you. We can only do what we have the talent to do. Don’t muzzle your one pragmatic chance to do something.
I think founder interest is important, but not that important. For example, Andres from the Shrimp Welfare Project often talks about how he never saw himself running a shrimp charity until he engaged with the arguments as part of the program. What’s unique about EA is its focus on the problems themselves, and not the existing interests of donors or founders.
I take this “The world is to big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will take” as a good encapsulation of what you’re arguing, and I disagree. Founder interest is a much less useful signal than the results of careful cost benefit research. Yes we’ll always be uncertain, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better when we think carefully.
Also, separately, I expect that being given a list of charity ideas you don’t have existing interest in and still wanting to pursue the program is a good filter for the humility/ responsiveness to the actual world that you need to be a good charity founder.
Yes there’s always going to be an Andres where it works out well. And everyone knows AIM has done well…but I think they could have done ten times better. EA could be five to ten times bigger if they would cure the ailment you so love.
The difference between my view and AIM/EA broadly is the difference between on the ground real life experience in how humans are motivated and an attempt to figure out reality via spreadsheet & analysis in a room. Believe me I’m an EA and I love EA very much. I never digressed to hedging my love by being “EA adjacent” as some. I’ve maintained being fully public EA. I’m not rejecting EA’s core project to use science to be more effective in altruism, I’m saying to modify it with some common sense. EA funding all sorts of new charities from 25 year olds with a napkin plan and not seeking veterans is one example. I love the 25 year olds with a napkin, but don’t only do that. Go find some veterans too. Don’t only do six causes each new round at AIM, open it up and do “both and”, both the new one’s and the ongoing list of past one’s.
Some donors like EAs current narrow way, probably ten times more would like it to be far more pragmatic with deeply experienced field advisors and not only a few researchers in a room calling shots. Both and. EA is religious in its legalism.
By the way, you do a good job here, I appreciate you.
Interesting but I’m still not sure—there are clearly costs to a ‘both and’ approach. AIM would be vastly less impactful if most of the founders who joined ignored their list of recommended charities.
However, I am a 25 year-old with a napkin (lol, good phrase)
Appreciate the exchange though, thanks Jeffrey!
PS- draft amnesty week is coming up if you want to lay out your ideas for more people to discuss.
Yes that’s valuable, but I’d say it’s pretty easy to synthesize their cause priorities with founders own motivations. For example, keep the list going for every new round, so there’s 20-30 choices, all just as worthy as they were last year. Two orgs coming at one cause with different approaches is great. This same problem exists throughout EA when we imagine we can truly figure out what needs to be done based on the ITN framework. It’s a great framework, I love it, but the reality of making impact in the real world in a cause you’ve prioritized is that there are infinite angles to approach each one. Between two broad approaches are infinite degrees of adjustment to approach it. The world is too big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will take. To imagine researchers in a room in the U.K., not in the field, having no personal knowledge of the cause overall and specific challenges on the ground, to be able to figure it out on paper is an intellectual arrogance. The world is too big, you can’t figure it out. So be practical and let talent guide you. We can only do what we have the talent to do. Don’t muzzle your one pragmatic chance to do something.
I think founder interest is important, but not that important.
For example, Andres from the Shrimp Welfare Project often talks about how he never saw himself running a shrimp charity until he engaged with the arguments as part of the program. What’s unique about EA is its focus on the problems themselves, and not the existing interests of donors or founders.
I take this “The world is to big to figure it out in advance, so allow founder interest to guide to which approach you will take” as a good encapsulation of what you’re arguing, and I disagree. Founder interest is a much less useful signal than the results of careful cost benefit research. Yes we’ll always be uncertain, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better when we think carefully.
Also, separately, I expect that being given a list of charity ideas you don’t have existing interest in and still wanting to pursue the program is a good filter for the humility/ responsiveness to the actual world that you need to be a good charity founder.
Yes there’s always going to be an Andres where it works out well. And everyone knows AIM has done well…but I think they could have done ten times better. EA could be five to ten times bigger if they would cure the ailment you so love.
The difference between my view and AIM/EA broadly is the difference between on the ground real life experience in how humans are motivated and an attempt to figure out reality via spreadsheet & analysis in a room. Believe me I’m an EA and I love EA very much. I never digressed to hedging my love by being “EA adjacent” as some. I’ve maintained being fully public EA. I’m not rejecting EA’s core project to use science to be more effective in altruism, I’m saying to modify it with some common sense. EA funding all sorts of new charities from 25 year olds with a napkin plan and not seeking veterans is one example. I love the 25 year olds with a napkin, but don’t only do that. Go find some veterans too. Don’t only do six causes each new round at AIM, open it up and do “both and”, both the new one’s and the ongoing list of past one’s.
Some donors like EAs current narrow way, probably ten times more would like it to be far more pragmatic with deeply experienced field advisors and not only a few researchers in a room calling shots. Both and. EA is religious in its legalism.
By the way, you do a good job here, I appreciate you.
Interesting but I’m still not sure—there are clearly costs to a ‘both and’ approach. AIM would be vastly less impactful if most of the founders who joined ignored their list of recommended charities.
However, I am a 25 year-old with a napkin (lol, good phrase)
Appreciate the exchange though, thanks Jeffrey!
PS- draft amnesty week is coming up if you want to lay out your ideas for more people to discuss.