Thank you for thinking of SoGive. We now have a new, slimmed down strategy; I’m still finalising writing up the document, but I suspect that projects like these might not fit so well with them any more (although they may well have been a better fit in the past).
On another note, I don’t think I understand your theory of change based on this post.
I don’t know why people would be interested in this.
It’s different from the “How rich am I” calculator, because that calculator tells me something about me, and there is nothing more fascinating than me (!).
I also ran through the original list of news values/media values (i.e. the list of characteristics that makes something newsworthy) and it seemed to me that this didn’t tick any of the boxes (although you might disagree with this assessment, or might not think that is the correct list of media values).
Even if it did go viral, it seems it would have a pretty low impact on the extent to which EA has greater acceptance.
I hope that doesn’t sound too critical, perhaps I’m missing something?
I think an important aspect of the theory of change could be showing participants that their priors on the cost to save a life are very wrong especially with regard to domestic v. international charities. Ultimately, this could lead to donors giving more internationally.
My understanding is that most donors prefer to make an impact on their local community/country, but that preference may weaken if they learn that the impact of their dollars are an order of magnitude more impactful internationally.
Even if it did go viral, it seems it would have a pretty low impact on the extent to which EA has greater acceptance.
I think I might agree (and maybe I should take that out of the ToC) but could you elaborate a bit on “why not”?
The base argument is “people see this important insight they were wrong about, they are impressed with the careful evidence and arguments, they see it’s linked to EA, this increases their interest in EA and how much credibility they give EA”… I guess that’s how many of us came into EA, but it’s not said that this would be the dominant path for people exposed to this.
That media list seems outdated … or perhaps it applies more to passive content (not even ‘clicks’). The proposal is more in the nature of the ‘personality quiz’, ‘one weird trick’, ‘can you guess better than a 5 year old’ or ‘here’s what you are wrong about’ internet genre.
I.e., it piques my curiosity. when someone asks me something I think I know the answer to (and have strong opinions on) but have heard contradictory things, I want to click it to scratch the itch.
Thank you for thinking of SoGive. We now have a new, slimmed down strategy; I’m still finalising writing up the document, but I suspect that projects like these might not fit so well with them any more (although they may well have been a better fit in the past).
On another note, I don’t think I understand your theory of change based on this post.
I don’t know why people would be interested in this.
It’s different from the “How rich am I” calculator, because that calculator tells me something about me, and there is nothing more fascinating than me (!).
I also ran through the original list of news values/media values (i.e. the list of characteristics that makes something newsworthy) and it seemed to me that this didn’t tick any of the boxes (although you might disagree with this assessment, or might not think that is the correct list of media values).
Even if it did go viral, it seems it would have a pretty low impact on the extent to which EA has greater acceptance.
I hope that doesn’t sound too critical, perhaps I’m missing something?
I think an important aspect of the theory of change could be showing participants that their priors on the cost to save a life are very wrong especially with regard to domestic v. international charities. Ultimately, this could lead to donors giving more internationally.
My understanding is that most donors prefer to make an impact on their local community/country, but that preference may weaken if they learn that the impact of their dollars are an order of magnitude more impactful internationally.
I think I might agree (and maybe I should take that out of the ToC) but could you elaborate a bit on “why not”?
The base argument is “people see this important insight they were wrong about, they are impressed with the careful evidence and arguments, they see it’s linked to EA, this increases their interest in EA and how much credibility they give EA”… I guess that’s how many of us came into EA, but it’s not said that this would be the dominant path for people exposed to this.
That media list seems outdated … or perhaps it applies more to passive content (not even ‘clicks’). The proposal is more in the nature of the ‘personality quiz’, ‘one weird trick’, ‘can you guess better than a 5 year old’ or ‘here’s what you are wrong about’ internet genre.
I.e., it piques my curiosity. when someone asks me something I think I know the answer to (and have strong opinions on) but have heard contradictory things, I want to click it to scratch the itch.