I’m not sure that’s true, though I may be biased by my own case
Rebecca
Karma: 1,881
I don’t have twitter so I can’t view the thread, but bankruptcy of a company for facilitating $500m of damage being caused (the monetary threshold of the bill) doesn’t seem very mild?
It’s coming up for renewal in a couple of days, so by default I will give it up
Does anyone want the domain effectiveattention.org?
Rebecca’s Quick takes
That link doesn’t work for me fyi
I have seen some moderate pushback on the amount of money spent on EAGs (though not directed at EAGxes)
I agree it’s likely they have a smaller budget, but equating budget with total spend per year (rather than saying that one is an indication of the other) is slightly begging the question—any gap between the two may reflect relevant CEAs.
Thanks for doing all this analysis, very interesting. Did you ask if people had ever attended an EAGx or EAG before? (I was in the control group but can’t remember whether I was asked this or not). For me personally, I’m pretty confident my first EAGx made the most counterfactual difference in continued engagement, vs subsequent EAGxes.
It’s the last line in your second screenshot
> funded by organizations/program areas that made decisions using the lens of EA
I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar thing occured—those orgs/programs decide that it isn’t that cost-effective to do GHW community-building. I could see it going another way, but my baseline assumption is that any sort of community-building in developed countries isn’t an efficient use of money, so you need quite a strong case for increased impact for it to be worthwhile.
I think the correct interpretation of this is that OP GHW doesn’t think general community building for its cause areas is cost effective, which seems quite plausible to me. [Edit: note I’m saying community-building in general, not just the EA community specifically—so under this view, the skewing of the EA community is less relevant. My baseline assumption is that any sort of community-building in developed countries isn’t an efficient use of money, so you need quite a strong case for increased impact for it to be worthwhile.].
What was EV’s official policy post-Ben Delo?
Examples of arguments you see as having this issue
Could you give some examples?
Where do they say the handpicked line?
Yeah this seems the most straightforward interpretation
Breaking a charitable pledge of this magnitude (he has no plans to actually give the money away, it could very well just sit there) should be severely looked down upon IMO—otherwise the concept of a pledge has no power.
I’m still confused about what the misunderstanding is
I think it’s important to get the facts right and to present the best case when trying to persuade someone who disagreees with you to change their mind.
This one is a bad example. When I first heard he’d said this, as an Australian my initial reaction was ‘he probably means that they won’t need to if they don’t want to, voting isn’t compulsory in the US and an insane amount of resources seems be spent each election on getting people to vote at all’. And sure enough, when asked by journalists what he’d meant, he said that Christians tend not to vote in these elections, and so he’s trying to convince them they should do so in this election because he’ll ban abortion and then they can go back to their non-voting.