While I agree the current focus is too limited, I would generally advice against emphasising “general advice what to do everywhere” like the suggestions nr. 1 or 2. on global level, because of reasons mostly explained here. One sentence version is people greatly under-appreciate the differences caused by location.
(For example, while donating money may be a good option for someone working in fintech in the US, a philosophy postdoc in Prague can be earning about £1000/m.)
Meta-point is with increasing “distance” from Oxford and the Bay area, effective altruism groups need to do more of their own prioritization, and need to think more in terms of the “actual consequences” and less in terms of proxy metrices like number of etgs.
I agree “measuring projects” is important, but sees it’s not that neglected—for example in evaluations in EA community building grants, there is explicit space for this.
I have quite a lot of theory on network effects, in part explicit, but very little time to write some accessible explanations. Also writing is slow and painful process for me. If anyone would be interested in collaborating on this and doing most of the actual writing, I would be happy to share it.
I agree more independent local EA groups need to define success and its consequences for themselves. Using proxy metrices is also just a way of getting local EA groups to share some common ground since we can evaluate between them, e.g., for grant-making purposes, or so local EA groups have a template for what success looks like.
I would be interested in collaborating on this, and perhaps doing most of the actual writing, or at least quite a lot of it, as I don’t find writing to be as slow and painful a process.
While I agree the current focus is too limited, I would generally advice against emphasising “general advice what to do everywhere” like the suggestions nr. 1 or 2. on global level, because of reasons mostly explained here. One sentence version is people greatly under-appreciate the differences caused by location.
(For example, while donating money may be a good option for someone working in fintech in the US, a philosophy postdoc in Prague can be earning about £1000/m.)
Meta-point is with increasing “distance” from Oxford and the Bay area, effective altruism groups need to do more of their own prioritization, and need to think more in terms of the “actual consequences” and less in terms of proxy metrices like number of etgs.
I agree “measuring projects” is important, but sees it’s not that neglected—for example in evaluations in EA community building grants, there is explicit space for this.
I have quite a lot of theory on network effects, in part explicit, but very little time to write some accessible explanations. Also writing is slow and painful process for me. If anyone would be interested in collaborating on this and doing most of the actual writing, I would be happy to share it.
I agree more independent local EA groups need to define success and its consequences for themselves. Using proxy metrices is also just a way of getting local EA groups to share some common ground since we can evaluate between them, e.g., for grant-making purposes, or so local EA groups have a template for what success looks like.
I would be interested in collaborating on this, and perhaps doing most of the actual writing, or at least quite a lot of it, as I don’t find writing to be as slow and painful a process.