Thanks for the survey! An interesting read. One question, two comments:
1 How do I read the graph on p10?
2
“Reading the “The Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism”, one would expect a roughly even
split between (1) poverty, (2) metacharity, (3) far future / xrisk / AI, and (4) nonhuman
animals. Above, instead of equal splits, poverty emerges as a clear leader \footnote: Statistically significant with a ttest, p < 0.0001.”
Though, maybe this isn’t fair. If we redefine metacharity to also include rationality and cause
prioritization, it takes the top slot (with 616 people advocating for at least one of the three).
And if you take far future, xrisk, and AI as one cluster, it comes in third with 441 people
advocating for at least one of the three. (Poverty, at 579, claims second place.)
It cannot be correct to say that poverty is clearly leading the four because in the next sentence you say that that metacharity was arguably more popular than it.
3
I don’t know of any public information on Giving What We Can members beyond the
membership count and donation totals.
They recently added a donation breakdown to their front page.
Thanks for all the work put into this, and it’ll be good to see what thinking unfolds from it.
x-axis is the percent of income donated. y-axis is the number of people who have donated that percent or more.
-
It cannot be correct to say that poverty is clearly leading the four because in the next sentence you say that that metacharity was arguably more popular than it.
It is “clearly leading the four” under one interpretation, which I go on to suggest is probably a narrow one.
1 thanks, that makes sense. Maybe it’s just me, but when I see this kind of graph, I’m expecting the y-axis to be the response variable e.g. percent of income donated, and the x-axis to represent the rank of the people like this.
2 I know the report acknowledges that its interpretation is questionable there but I think that understates the problem. Rather, I think it proposes then misapplies a categorisation...
Imagine that I make a survey regarding the world’s religions, and I made survey with options “Anglican”, “Catholic”, “Islamic”, “Buddhist”, “Hindu”, et cetera, and then I say that reading theological scholar so-and-so’s categorisation of the four great religions—Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu—Hindu is clearly the most popular. And then I go on to clarify that if you add Anglican and Catholic together, you end up with more than in Hindu. Then I go on to say that these are two different “interpretations”, one of which is “probably narrow”...
I’m not au fait with metacharity or rationality—can you explain why rationality should be bundled under metacharity? What is the meta plan behind promotion of rationality (particular in it’s specific forms, like the organisation CFAR)?
Is this really true as strongly as that Anglican and Catholic should be bundled under Christian? I guess the point of your analogy may have been that Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism classed rationality/CFAR under meta EA, which is fair.
Yeah, I don’t think that they’re as similar as Anglicanism or Catholicism, I’m just saying that you have to consistently apply your chosen scheme.
But I do in fact think that they’re decently related. EA Outreach wants to increase the number of people trying to do good. 80,000 Hours wants to move altruists to impactful careers (increasing quality of altruistic activities). GPP wants to get altruists working on higher-value projects. CFAR wants altruists to be equipped with better thinking skills (and non-altruists). The common thread is that they all want to increase the number, build the capacities and improve the target projects of altruists.
Thanks for the survey! An interesting read. One question, two comments:
1 How do I read the graph on p10?
2
It cannot be correct to say that poverty is clearly leading the four because in the next sentence you say that that metacharity was arguably more popular than it.
3
Thanks for all the work put into this, and it’ll be good to see what thinking unfolds from it.
x-axis is the percent of income donated. y-axis is the number of people who have donated that percent or more.
-
It is “clearly leading the four” under one interpretation, which I go on to suggest is probably a narrow one.
1 thanks, that makes sense. Maybe it’s just me, but when I see this kind of graph, I’m expecting the y-axis to be the response variable e.g. percent of income donated, and the x-axis to represent the rank of the people like this.
2 I know the report acknowledges that its interpretation is questionable there but I think that understates the problem. Rather, I think it proposes then misapplies a categorisation...
Imagine that I make a survey regarding the world’s religions, and I made survey with options “Anglican”, “Catholic”, “Islamic”, “Buddhist”, “Hindu”, et cetera, and then I say that reading theological scholar so-and-so’s categorisation of the four great religions—Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu—Hindu is clearly the most popular. And then I go on to clarify that if you add Anglican and Catholic together, you end up with more than in Hindu. Then I go on to say that these are two different “interpretations”, one of which is “probably narrow”...
I’m not au fait with metacharity or rationality—can you explain why rationality should be bundled under metacharity? What is the meta plan behind promotion of rationality (particular in it’s specific forms, like the organisation CFAR)?
Is this really true as strongly as that Anglican and Catholic should be bundled under Christian? I guess the point of your analogy may have been that Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism classed rationality/CFAR under meta EA, which is fair.
Yeah, I don’t think that they’re as similar as Anglicanism or Catholicism, I’m just saying that you have to consistently apply your chosen scheme.
But I do in fact think that they’re decently related. EA Outreach wants to increase the number of people trying to do good. 80,000 Hours wants to move altruists to impactful careers (increasing quality of altruistic activities). GPP wants to get altruists working on higher-value projects. CFAR wants altruists to be equipped with better thinking skills (and non-altruists). The common thread is that they all want to increase the number, build the capacities and improve the target projects of altruists.
Makes sense, but points to meta being an unusually broad and unspecific description.
That’s fair. It’s a cumulative frequency graph.
-
I mean it’s a matter of opinion, so I thought I’d provide the different interpretations. Sorry if you feel that I editorialized too much.