This doesn’t seem like it is common knowledge. Also, “weird things that make sense” does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers.
It’s possible that there are good weird ideas that never cross our desk, but that’s again an informational reason rather than weirdness.
This is not the state of the world I would expect to observe if the LTF was getting a lot of weird ideas. In that case, I’d expect some weird ideas to be funded, and some really weird ideas to not get funded.
Also, “weird things that make sense” does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers.
It’s up to the applicant to state their case to convince a (hopefully) risk neutral, intelligent and knowledgeable fund manager to give them money. If they don’t do so convincingly enough then it’s probably because their idea isn’t good enough.
To me, it feels like I (and other grantmakers) have been saying this over and over again (on the Forum, on Facebook, in Dank EA Memes, etc.), and yet people keep believing it’s hard to fund weird things. I’m confused by this.
Also, “weird things that make sense” does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers.
Sure, but that argument applies to individual donors in the same way. (You might say that having more diverse decision-makers helps, but I’m pretty skeptical and think this will instead just lower the bar for funding.)
This doesn’t seem like it is common knowledge. Also, “weird things that make sense” does kind of screen off a bunch of ideas which make sense to potential applicants, but not to fund managers.
This is not the state of the world I would expect to observe if the LTF was getting a lot of weird ideas. In that case, I’d expect some weird ideas to be funded, and some really weird ideas to not get funded.
It’s up to the applicant to state their case to convince a (hopefully) risk neutral, intelligent and knowledgeable fund manager to give them money. If they don’t do so convincingly enough then it’s probably because their idea isn’t good enough.
To me, it feels like I (and other grantmakers) have been saying this over and over again (on the Forum, on Facebook, in Dank EA Memes, etc.), and yet people keep believing it’s hard to fund weird things. I’m confused by this.
Sure, but that argument applies to individual donors in the same way. (You might say that having more diverse decision-makers helps, but I’m pretty skeptical and think this will instead just lower the bar for funding.)