I don’t think there is a systematic process for feedback for the EA funds at the moment. It’s mainly ad hoc with the fund managers gathering feedback themselves, people emailing them or forum posts like this one.
There may also be a way of telling by looking at how much people continue to give to each fund, although I don’t know how closely donors are monitoring the eventual impact.
I agree that individuals will find it hard when donating individually but the call to action is about using the EA fund or creating a separate one with these aims in mind.
Similar to how people might choose to invest in a low/medium/high risk fund for their own savings.
This is quite a tangential point to the post and might come across as trying to divert the conversation.
There’s a possibility that if this happens a lot, it lowers the chance that other people pay attention to the points when they are relevant.
I don’t know as much about them.
I think that it would make sense to have experts that know this landscape pretty well to work out where the potential gaps are.
The author has a tweet about what inspired the piece
The Long Time project
Seth Baum at GCR
Toby Ord and FHI
Thanks, I’ve updated the post.
It may be a good thing that people that are less inclined to write up a report will be less likely to join a donor lottery.
“Correct answer” is maybe not the best wording, it means the answer that Rethink Charity used to describe their results, and is also consistent with how they reported the results in previous years. I should have pointed this out at the beginning of the survey.
In terms of the political questions, that is also shifted by a large response from people supporting libertarian or other political views.
I’d be interested in seeing how evidence based medicine became the default in most places (amongst the general public as well as within medicine), and if there were previous attempts to popularise it that failed.
I feel like I might be missing something obvious, but under the “other influences on giving” section, are there really 514 researchers that filled out the survey?
I think total responsibility is really important, although in larger organisations it can be useful to make sure that you aren’t duplicating efforts or annoying other people by assuming that you are the only one that can fix things and end up burning bridges with the people you need to work with.
I think even the slightly out of date advice is still pretty good for getting people to think about the right ways to approach finding an impactful job.
There isn’t an alternative that I point people towards even if the latest content and coaching is more targeted than the general advice.
For the majority of their audience I think this is okay, but for people who might set up similar career coaching and content it might crowd them out, although this has already been mentioned in other comments.
I went back and looked at an earlier Feedly I had setup from 18th November 2015 until 3rd March 2016 and there were 2123 mentions of “effective altruism” which is over 106 days compared to 130 days in the current example.
I have a suspicion that a few tweets get cut off from my current Feedly which might be one reason it seems to be lower, it could also be that there was a bigger media push in 2015/2016.
It should be possible to scrape from twitter for earlier dates.
From my feedly since July 13th 2018 there have been at least 1650 tweets with the phrase”effective altruism” and 128 with the phrase “effective altruist”.
As a side note it seems that there are a higher proportion of negative tweets with “effective altruist” than “effective altruism”.
I didn’t vote either way but the picture, emojis and multiple disclaimers throughout are probably not needed.
Also some of the ideas aren’t explored that much and would be better either fleshed out or not included.
Here is a post on a similar topic which could be a good style to copy.
Another post by the founder of createquity—https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HQBbpMzw4Yjvadvws/all-causes-are-ea-causes
I guess I have never really chosen the 5 people I spend the most time with, but I think it’s been beneficial for me that they generally have different styles of communicating so I’m used to constantly switching how I listen/talk.
I think this is really useful but the final clarification is really important and maybe should be included in the section on key points—if you do all of these things repeatedly, you’ll be really annoying and soon you’ll be hardly listening because of all the questions and paraphrasing. Sometimes I find it better to wait for people to finish speaking (even if it’s 3-5 minutes) and just ask the most important clarification.
Also once you’ve been improving your listening abilities for a while it seems to be even more impactful to scale back paraphrasing and acknowledgements as your conversation style will naturally show an understanding.
I think I disagree with trying to surround yourself with people who ‘suck it up’ as it may make it harder to talk to everyone else if you slip into conversational norms with people who never get offended or annoyed.
I looked into this and of the women that came to just 1 event, there was an average of 49% female attendance. Of women who came to 2 or more events, the first event they came to had, an average of 45% female attendance.
Also of the women who came to 5 or more events, half of them came to an event with less than 40% female attendance and half of them came to an event with more than 40%.
Looking at this part -
“We did include more people from organisations focused on long-termism. It’s not clear what the right method is here, as organisations that are bigger and/or have more influence over the community ought to have more representation, but we think there’s room for disagreement with this decision.”
I think one potential reason there are more people interested in EA working at LTF organisations is that EA and LTF are both relatively new ideas. Not many people are considering careers in these areas, so it is much easier for a community to found and staff the majority of organisations.
If global development had been ignored until 5 years ago, it’s very likely most of the organisations in this area would be founded by people interested in EA, and they might be over represented in surveys like this.
There may be talent gaps in other cause areas (beyond development and animals) that are missed out as they don’t have leaders with EA backgrounds but that doesn’t mean that those gaps should be under weighted.
It may be worth having a separate survey trying to get opinions considering talent gaps in priority areas whether they are led by people involved in EA or not.