Error

Hmm, in theory, you can certainly combine lots of your actions into a unifying framework, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. It seems more psychologically healthy to have a donation budget and a self budget, and to reallocate them at a regular interval.

Nice post. Spending resources on self-improvement is generally something EA’s shouldn’t feel bad about.

One solution may be different classes of risk-aversity. One low-risk class may be dedicated to GiveWell- or ACE-recommended charities, another to metacharities or endeavors as Open Phil might evaluate, and another high-risk class to yourself, an intervention as 80,000 Hours might evaluate.

I do intuit that the best high-risk interventions ought to be more cost-effective than the best medium-risk interventions, which ought to be more cost-effective than the best low risk interventions, such that someone with a given level of risk tolerance might want to mainly fund the best known interventions at a certain level of riskiness. However, since effective philanthropy isn’t an efficient market yet, this needn’t be true.