Done, thanks :-)
Thanks Jeff. I agree.
Note that, strictly speaking, the formula is the value of a given dollar if invested until GT. So, if we’re referring to the 20,001st dollar, then we should probably adjust the probability of it getting matched down, way below my 30%. (Due to the time it takes to make several donations on Giving Tuesday morning, that probability should curve down before that anyway). But if you still assign it a probability of 12%, it’s worth doing now.
My personal credence that donations above $20K would be matched is probably much lower than this for the reasons you identify, though.
And note that you can adjust for the probability of value drift in the spreadsheet :-)
Set up a bank account beneficiary (CEA USA) as a result of this. Thanks Aaron!
Totally. I’ll do some elaboration on why I found it useful [we discussed some of this on Facebook, but I thought it worthwhile to post publicly :-)]:
When I table for EA causes, I get a lot of pushback from left-leaning people that are worried (both justifiably and not) about histories of paternalistic and imperialistic aid in the developing world. Specifically, a lot of grad students (where I am) are already quite committed to using a social justice framework to evaluate potential interventions, which puts a lot of emphasis on avoiding these things.
I think EA as such does a good job of mitigating this at the object level by focusing on demonstrable impact. But I don’t think we currently do a great job communicating this to people with those worries, which in my experience are quite popular. Adopting better messaging can be a cheap signal that we take these concerns seriously, or moral trade with people who care about donor side attitudes more than effectiveness. My prediction is that this would potentially open them up to both global giving and further engagement with EA. Otherwise, it’s hard for us to distinguish ourselves from the reference class of potential white-savior-y people who want to do good overseas.
Thanks for sharing this with us, Farhan. Like Holly, my heart goes out to you and the people of Dhaka.
I wish I was in a better position to help. This feels a bit feeble, but I’m sharing it just because there’s a small probability that it helps. The EA community has done a little work on traffic safety. Obviously, this is quite different from the root problem of political corruption. However, given the entanglement of the corruption/violence with the traffic safety catalyst here, perhaps some of the listed organizations would amplify the concerns being voiced and bring more attention to Bangladesh—both the traffic issue and the resulting protests/crackdown.
Thanks Michael! I’ve linked to a Google Doc version with footnotes for ease-of-reading: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i1-57jRg7vrcTBXAcqIFAYzGoC-bftIMnElqPKFGMVk/edit?usp=sharing
This is correct about HLS. We think that OFTW outreach has generally been a good way to build name recognition for EA—if you ask people what we do, they know about OFTW because it’s a big, very visible effort. I think there’s some risk that they think we’re limited to poverty work (a general EA problem), but I don’t think this is an unavoidable consequence of our partnership with OFTW—it’s because our other programming has so far been less visible.
It’s also a good way for us to stratify our programming (both for our members and for involving non-members) so that we have meaningful interaction with both EA-sympathetic “normal” (i.e., not EA career things) people and career-minded EAs.
I generally agree, which is why I explicitly acknowledge this in the post. But I also think you’re mistaken about what’s democratically feasible. The citizenry definitely gives a nonzero value to foreign lives (e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/04/americans-love-to-hate-foreign-aid-but-the-right-argument-makes-them-like-it-a-lot-more/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.208535615b42), but current CBA only weighs them quantitatively (which is as good as not at all). I really doubt that diminishing the discounting rate by a point or so would engender political backlash; most people presumably think we should care about the future too and in any case have no clue what the discount rate is.
Basically, the social welfare function of the US citizenry is actually probably more cosmopolitan than current CBA. CBA is pretty well isolated from political scrutiny (most people have no idea what it is and it generally has bipartisan support), so I don’t think minor positive adjustments are a big risk.
Thanks! I’ve added it to the Goodreads list.
Super interesting! Keep up the good work! :-)
A final update for this: it looks like they have stopped considering new applications. They have made grants to the following (arguably) EA orgs:
GiveDirectly ($2 MM)
Possible ($1 MM)
MAPS ($5 MM)
SENS ($2 MM)
Total directed to EA orgs: $10MM
Apologies if I’m missing any.
It looks like they also donated to Possible, which is a TLYCS charity :-)
I’m running a PredictionBook prediction on the success of this: https://predictionbook.com/predictions/188373 :-)