Does CRS (or do you and Magnus Vinding) have a relatively explicit, shared theory of change? Do you each have somewhat different theories of change, but these are still relatively explicit and communicated between you? Is it less explicit than that?
Whichever is the case, could you say a bit about why you think that’s the case?
(I’m basically just porting these questions over from the AMA with Owen Cotton-Barratt of FHI. I think the questions are slightly less relevant here, given CRS is newer and smaller. But I still find these questions interesting in relation to basically any EA/​longtermist research organisations or individual researchers.)
We have thought about this, and wrote up some internal documents, but have not yet published anything (though we might do that at some point, as part of a strategic plan). Magnus and I are quite aligned in our thinking about the theory of change. The key intended outcome is to catalyse a research project on how to best reduce suffering, both by creating relevant content ourselves and by convincing others to share our concerns regarding s-risks and reducing future suffering.
Do you have a sense of who you want to take up that project, or who you want to catalyse it among? E.g., academics vs EA researchers, and what type/​field?
And does this influence what you work on and how you communicate/​disseminate your work?
Does CRS (or do you and Magnus Vinding) have a relatively explicit, shared theory of change? Do you each have somewhat different theories of change, but these are still relatively explicit and communicated between you? Is it less explicit than that?
Whichever is the case, could you say a bit about why you think that’s the case?
(I’m basically just porting these questions over from the AMA with Owen Cotton-Barratt of FHI. I think the questions are slightly less relevant here, given CRS is newer and smaller. But I still find these questions interesting in relation to basically any EA/​longtermist research organisations or individual researchers.)
We have thought about this, and wrote up some internal documents, but have not yet published anything (though we might do that at some point, as part of a strategic plan). Magnus and I are quite aligned in our thinking about the theory of change. The key intended outcome is to catalyse a research project on how to best reduce suffering, both by creating relevant content ourselves and by convincing others to share our concerns regarding s-risks and reducing future suffering.
That makes sense, thanks.
Do you have a sense of who you want to take up that project, or who you want to catalyse it among? E.g., academics vs EA researchers, and what type/​field?
And does this influence what you work on and how you communicate/​disseminate your work?