I agree, I think itâs just disproportionately the case that donors to meta work are not taking into account these considerations.
What makes you think this? I found this post interesting, but not new; itâs all stuff Iâve thought about quite hard before. I wouldnât have thought I was roughly representative of meta donors here (I certainly know people who have thought harder), though Iâd be happy for other such donors to contradict me.
Iâve had conversations with people who said theyâve donated to GWWC because of high leverage ratios, and my impression based on those conversations is that they take the multiplier fairly literally (âeven if itâs off by an order of magnitude itâs still worthwhileâ) without really considering the alternatives.
In addition, itâs really easy to find all of the arguments in favor of meta, including (many of) the arguments that impact is probably being undercountedâyou just have to read the fundraising posts by meta orgs. I donât know of any post other than Hurfordâs that suggests considerations against meta. It took me about a year to generate all of the ideas not in that post, and it certainly helped that I was working in meta myself.
I think the arguments in favor of meta are intuitive, but not easy to find. For one thing, the orgâs posts tend to be org-specific (unsurprisngly) rather than a general defense of meta work. In fact, to the best of my knowledge the best general arguments have never been made on the forum at the top level because itâs sort-of-assumed that everybody knows them. So while youâre saying Peterâs post is the only such post you could find, thatâs still more than the reverse (and with your post, itâs now 2 â 0).
At the comment level itâs easy to find plenty of examples of people making anti-meta arguments.
I think itâs not quite what youâre looking for, but I wrote How valuable is movement growth?, which is an article analysing the long-term counterfactual impact of different types of short-term movement growth effects. (It doesnât properly speak to the empirical question of how short-term effort into meta work translates into short-term movement growth effects.)
I think the arguments in favor of meta are intuitive, but not easy to find. For one thing, the orgâs posts tend to be org-specific (unsurprisngly) rather than a general defense of meta work.
Huh, there is a surprising lack of a canonical article that makes the case for meta work. (Just tried to find one.) That said, itâs very common when getting interested in EA to hear about GiveWell, GWWC and 80K, and to look them up, which gives you a sense of the arguments for meta.
Also, I would actually prefer that the arguments against also be org-specific, since thatâs typically more decision-relevant, but a) thatâs more work and b) itâs hard to do without actually being a part of the organization.
Anyway, even though thereâs not a general article arguing for meta (which I am surprised by), that doesnât particularly change my belief that a lot of people know the arguments for but not the arguments against. This has increased my estimate of the number of people who know neither the arguments for nor the arguments against.
Iâm hoping/âplanning to plug both of those holes (a lack of org-specific criticism, and the uncomplied general arguments in favour) in the next few weeks, so did want to double-check that there wasnât a canonical piece that I was missing.
What makes you think this? I found this post interesting, but not new; itâs all stuff Iâve thought about quite hard before. I wouldnât have thought I was roughly representative of meta donors here (I certainly know people who have thought harder), though Iâd be happy for other such donors to contradict me.
Iâve had conversations with people who said theyâve donated to GWWC because of high leverage ratios, and my impression based on those conversations is that they take the multiplier fairly literally (âeven if itâs off by an order of magnitude itâs still worthwhileâ) without really considering the alternatives.
In addition, itâs really easy to find all of the arguments in favor of meta, including (many of) the arguments that impact is probably being undercountedâyou just have to read the fundraising posts by meta orgs. I donât know of any post other than Hurfordâs that suggests considerations against meta. It took me about a year to generate all of the ideas not in that post, and it certainly helped that I was working in meta myself.
I think the arguments in favor of meta are intuitive, but not easy to find. For one thing, the orgâs posts tend to be org-specific (unsurprisngly) rather than a general defense of meta work. In fact, to the best of my knowledge the best general arguments have never been made on the forum at the top level because itâs sort-of-assumed that everybody knows them. So while youâre saying Peterâs post is the only such post you could find, thatâs still more than the reverse (and with your post, itâs now 2 â 0).
At the comment level itâs easy to find plenty of examples of people making anti-meta arguments.
I think itâs not quite what youâre looking for, but I wrote How valuable is movement growth?, which is an article analysing the long-term counterfactual impact of different types of short-term movement growth effects. (It doesnât properly speak to the empirical question of how short-term effort into meta work translates into short-term movement growth effects.)
Huh, there is a surprising lack of a canonical article that makes the case for meta work. (Just tried to find one.) That said, itâs very common when getting interested in EA to hear about GiveWell, GWWC and 80K, and to look them up, which gives you a sense of the arguments for meta.
Also, I would actually prefer that the arguments against also be org-specific, since thatâs typically more decision-relevant, but a) thatâs more work and b) itâs hard to do without actually being a part of the organization.
Anyway, even though thereâs not a general article arguing for meta (which I am surprised by), that doesnât particularly change my belief that a lot of people know the arguments for but not the arguments against. This has increased my estimate of the number of people who know neither the arguments for nor the arguments against.
Sure, I think weâre on the same page here.
Iâm hoping/âplanning to plug both of those holes (a lack of org-specific criticism, and the uncomplied general arguments in favour) in the next few weeks, so did want to double-check that there wasnât a canonical piece that I was missing.