Looking at other social events not at pubs the ratio has been similar, ranging from picnics, hikes, Disney movies, restaurants, education/animal focused topics.
It feels like there are a range of different communities for EA, both on and offline. I’ve never really looked into philosophy and most of my conversations with people revolve around practical things to do and rarely does it go into existential risk/invertebrates and there is a lot more focus on system change/mental health in terms of more popular fringe ideas.
Also there are quite a few people who dip in and out of the community and will turn up once a year or just read the latest updates which seems good to me, everyone has different priorities and tasks taking up their time.
This isn’t really to persuade you, just to highlight to anyone reading that there doesn’t seem to be one type of community, and that you don’t have to be in or out, you can just use the tools provided for free.
The author has a tweet about what inspired the piece
The Long Time project
Seth Baum at GCR
Toby Ord and FHI
If there was any community that it might apply to, it’s probably effective altruists.
Just in reply to the graph section—this post made me think about possible reasons for the discrepancy between computer science and law/medicine.
This may be a community based thing but I haven’t seen anyone advocating for lying in the UK and haven’t heard of it much online either apart from one persons experience in California.
I agree with all the examples you have and think everyone should learn more about honest persuasion, but I’m not sure the myths to be bust are with the EA community rather than some peoples perception of the community.
The first part about Trump makes sense, he is more interested in having good ratings and pleasing people than carrying out any specific policy agenda, and I’m not sure he’d want to put the 12 hour days in to achieve it, so his presidency might just be generic republican.
I think the part about Europe doesn’t match what I see where I live in one of the ‘muslim no-go’ areas. Overall crime is roughly similar and much lower when you look at the long term trends. It seems like the majority of people are concerned with just living their lives and only a few pay that much attention to news/politics.
A lot of the things highlighted seem to have always existed in Europe, far right militias, gun smuggling, crime, more dangerous areas.
Only a third of people who voted for Brexit put migration as their top concern, for half it was sovereignty and some people who will just treat it as a vote against the current government.
It also seems like Brexit and Trump have raised EU support in most EU countries. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-approval-european-union-brexit-popularity-uk-bertelsmann-foundation-a7430266.html
I think it’s important to look at long term trends rather than the soundbites that hit the news from both left and right as they will always look for the strange and scary rather than give a good overview of how the world is changing.
I think he means that it is human behaviour to do that, not that he does it himself.
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 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 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.
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.
It may be a bit short sighted to try and grow in a way that leads to 0.1% of people being interested in effective altruism rather than 5%.
It seems to be a mistake that both the atheist and skeptic communities have made in the past.