How do you define “useful” if you’re excluding impacts on both donation and career decisions? It seems like all that’s left is what particular problems you work on directly, to the exclusion of career decisions. Like someone is already doing research or direct work, and their priotities are informed by research? E.g. animal charities deemphasized leafleting, 80,000 Hours shifted focus to longtermism, Rethink Priorities’ research on sentience and moral weight builds on existing research, etc.. Maybe someone set on founding a new EA charity decides which to start based on research (like Charity Entrepreneurship’s), or is that a career decisions?
No I am super interested in what research has guided peoples’ career decisions and donation decisions.
I just thought for simplicity that not worth having lots of people say “80K affected my career decisions” as I think there is already very good evidence of this, or having lots of people say that “GiveWell affected my donation decisions” as there is similarly good evidence for this. But if GiveWell research (or any non career org) affected your career decisions or if say Open Philanthropy research (or any non charity evaluator) affected your donation decisions then I am keen to hear it.Added an edit for clarity. Thank you for the question.