Some feedback please, esp. if it’s about the content, ToC, methods, etc
Maybe not detailed feedback, but I think you should give some feedback, especially to applicants who are particularly EA aligned and have EA forum type epistemic and discussion norms.
I think you should also encourage applicants to briefly respond.
And ideally this should be added to the public conversation too.
Why? Because we are in a low-information space, EA is a question not an answer, and my impression is that we are very uncertain about approaches and theories of change, especially in the X-risk & LT space.
I don’t think we make progress by ‘just charging forward on big stuff’ (not that you are advocating that). A big part of many of these projects themselves, and their impact is ‘figuring out and explaining what we should be doing and why’. So if the grant-making process can add substantial value to that, it’s worth doing (if it has high benefit/cost, which I argue it does).
You may know and appreciate something the applicants do not, and vice versa. (Public) conversation moves us forward.
“But this is better done in more systematic ways/contexts”
Maybe, but ~often these careful assessments don’t happen. I highly rate public feedback in academia as part of the review process if possible … Because in academia people actually ~under-read other people’s work carefully. (Everyone is trying to ‘publish their own’.) In EA this is probably less of a problem, we have better norms but still.
You, the grantmaker have read at least some parts of their project and taken it very seriously in ways that others will not. And you have some expertise and knowledge that may be transferable, particularly given our low information space.
But “It’s very hard to accurately change someone’s plans based on quick feedback”
That is OK. You don’t need to change their plans dramatically. The information you are giving them will still feed into their world model, and if they respond, v/v. And even better if it can be made public in some way.
But “It’s about personal factors” (OK, that’s ~different)
“No because of personal factors or person-project fit reasons” is probably the most common situation in a lot of cases.
I agree that this case and this type of feedback is a bit different, and does not pertain to my arguments above so much. Still, I think people would really appreciate some feedback here. What skills are they missing? What value have they failed to demonstrate? (Here an ounce of personalized feedback could be supplemented by a more substantial body of ‘generalized feedback’)
Some feedback please, esp. if it’s about the content, ToC, methods, etc
Maybe not detailed feedback, but I think you should give some feedback, especially to applicants who are particularly EA aligned and have EA forum type epistemic and discussion norms.
I think you should also encourage applicants to briefly respond.
And ideally this should be added to the public conversation too.
Why? Because we are in a low-information space, EA is a question not an answer, and my impression is that we are very uncertain about approaches and theories of change, especially in the X-risk & LT space.
I don’t think we make progress by ‘just charging forward on big stuff’ (not that you are advocating that). A big part of many of these projects themselves, and their impact is ‘figuring out and explaining what we should be doing and why’. So if the grant-making process can add substantial value to that, it’s worth doing (if it has high benefit/cost, which I argue it does).
You may know and appreciate something the applicants do not, and vice versa. (Public) conversation moves us forward.
“But this is better done in more systematic ways/contexts”
Maybe, but ~often these careful assessments don’t happen. I highly rate public feedback in academia as part of the review process if possible … Because in academia people actually ~under-read other people’s work carefully. (Everyone is trying to ‘publish their own’.) In EA this is probably less of a problem, we have better norms but still.
You, the grantmaker have read at least some parts of their project and taken it very seriously in ways that others will not. And you have some expertise and knowledge that may be transferable, particularly given our low information space.
But “It’s very hard to accurately change someone’s plans based on quick feedback”
That is OK. You don’t need to change their plans dramatically. The information you are giving them will still feed into their world model, and if they respond, v/v. And even better if it can be made public in some way.
But “It’s about personal factors” (OK, that’s ~different)
I agree that this case and this type of feedback is a bit different, and does not pertain to my arguments above so much. Still, I think people would really appreciate some feedback here. What skills are they missing? What value have they failed to demonstrate? (Here an ounce of personalized feedback could be supplemented by a more substantial body of ‘generalized feedback’)