Jamie_Harris

• Jamie_Harris 19 Sep 2020 20:36 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Ben_West’s comment on: How have you be­come more (or less) en­gaged with EA in the last year?

  Ex­actly the same for me, minus the bit about peo­ple mov­ing away.

Ca­reers ad­vis­ing calls and an on­line course about im­pact-fo­cused an­i­mal advocacy

• Jamie_Harris 5 Sep 2020 13:40 UTC

  18 points

  on: Ask­ing for advice

  +1 for writ­ing a con­cise doc­u­ment out­lin­ing your needs. +1 for per­son­ally lik­ing know­ing some­one is tak­ing notes on what you’re say­ing.

  I find it’s helpful to be es­pe­cially clear about the stage of com­ple­tion that some­thing is. E.g. I’ve given de­tailed feed­back on draft doc­u­ments be­fore­hand, only to re­al­ise by the end that the doc­u­ment was in­tended more as an in­com­plete brain­storm than a finished product. And I’ve failed to make that clear to oth­ers be­fore and re­ceived un­nec­es­sar­ily spe­cific feed­back.

Ca­reers (to help an­i­mals) in poli­tics, policy, and lobbying

• Jamie_Harris 28 Aug 2020 22:54 UTC

  1 point

  on: Cause/​char­ity se­lec­tion tradeoffs

  Here is a bunch of trade­offs that af­fect an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy. This post pro­vides oth­ers in EA more widely. (Apolo­gies, this is kind of the op­po­site to what you asked for, but I thought it was worth leav­ing them here any­way just in case it was helpful.)

• Jamie_Harris 17 Aug 2020 7:49 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: jackva’s comment on: In­for­ma­tional Lob­by­ing: The­ory and Effectiveness

  It also seems that the re­port some­what un­der-em­pha­sizes the idea of lob­by­ing equil­ibria where marginal in­creases by one side would be quickly coun­tered, which would make it look like ad­di­tional money could be effec­tive when in effect it is not.

  Thanks for shar­ing this. I’d be in­ter­ested if you’re aware of em­piri­cal ev­i­dence of this effect/​re­ac­tion hap­pen­ing? Or is this largely a the­o­ret­i­cal con­cern?

• Jamie_Harris 17 Aug 2020 7:44 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Matt_Lerner’s comment on: In­for­ma­tional Lob­by­ing: The­ory and Effectiveness

  Groups that spend more rel­a­tive to their op­po­si­tion on a given policy are like­lier to win… Although Baum­gart­ner et al con­duct an ob­ser­va­tional study, the size of their (to me, con­vinc­ingly rep­re­sen­ta­tive) sam­ple to me sug­gests that if such an effect ex­ists, it should be ob­serv­able as a cor­re­la­tion in their anal­y­sis. The as­so­ci­a­tion they ob­serve is pretty small.

  I just skimmed this thread, so apolo­gies if I missed a com­ment on this. But Baum­gart­ner et al. don’t ar­gue that money doesn’t mat­ter. They be­lieve that the rea­son there’s lit­tle ev­i­dence in their study that money af­fects out­comes is be­cause “the sta­tus quo already re­flects the dis­tri­bu­tion of power in pre­vi­ous rounds of the policy pro­cess.” I.e. they don’t see large changes dur­ing their 4 year study pe­riod, be­cause the situ­a­tion at the start of their study pe­riod tended to favour the re­source-rich groups.

• Jamie_Harris 16 Aug 2020 11:42 UTC

  1 point

  on: EA Fo­rum fea­ture sug­ges­tion thread

  I like listen­ing to ar­ti­cles on “Voice aloud reader.” I think that the eas­iest way to use this is to open a PDF file. So some method of con­vert­ing fo­rum posts into PDF’s might be use­ful, even if it stripped out images, graphs etc.

  (Pretty low pri­or­ity, feel free to ig­nore if not com­mon. It’s also pos­si­ble I just haven’t played around with Voice Aloud Reader and similar soft­ware enough)

• Jamie_Harris 16 Aug 2020 11:33 UTC

  5 points

  in reply to: kierangreig’s comment on: An­i­mal Welfare Fund Grants – Au­gust 2020

  Good to see this rea­son­ing! I had as­sumed that an­other rea­son was es­sen­tially that it en­ables lower-cost tests of the promise of par­tic­u­lar ideas? I.e. EA Funds can sup­port a num­ber of small or­gani­sa­tions to scale up slightly; if it goes well, then they might be can­di­dates for fund­ing from Open Philan­thropy or other sources of larger grants.

• Jamie_Harris 16 Aug 2020 10:53 UTC

  1 point

  on: The ex­treme cost-effec­tive­ness of cell-based meat R&D

  Thanks for shar­ing this! I had con­sid­ered at­tempt­ing some sort of back of the en­velope calcu­la­tion like this my­self so I’m glad to see your effort.

  I also found it in­ter­est­ing to see some of your guesses/​as­sump­tions, like “Sup­pose with­out cell-based meat, hu­mans will use farm an­i­mals for an­other 10.000 years at 10^11 an­i­mals per year.” I think that, if a more rigor­ous cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis was at­tempted, it would be good to sur­vey ex­perts on their in­tu­itions on some big ques­tions like that.

  
  

  This sort of mod­el­ling is definitely not my forte, so apolo­gies if I’m mi­s­un­der­stand­ing. Am I right in say­ing that the model cur­rently as­sumes *no* diminish­ing re­turns? I.e. that the 100 mil­lionth dol­lar donat­ing to cul­ti­vated meat R&D is equal to the 1st dol­lar? I think that the value of ad­di­tional con­tri­bu­tions on the mar­gin is the im­por­tant (and difficult) thing to es­ti­mate.

  An­i­mal Char­ity Eval­u­a­tors es­ti­mates a cost-effec­tive­ness of around 10 farm an­i­mals spared per euro donated to its top recom­mended char­i­ties. This is an or­der 10 lower than cell-based meat R&D.

  I’m not sure that ACE’s CEAs should re­ally be com­pared to your CEA. The method­olo­gies are very differ­ent. E.g. ACE’s CEAs ex­clude any un­cer­tain, medium-term effects, whereas your CEA is es­sen­tially en­tirely based on those sorts of medium-term effects (I say medium-term to dis­t­in­guish effects on farmed an­i­mals in the next few cen­turies from effects on other fu­ture sen­tient be­ings such as ar­tifi­cial sen­tience).

  
  

  A cou­ple of lower im­por­tance com­ments, for the main thrust of your post:

  Based only on the re­sponses of non-ve­g­ans who an­swered that they re­duced their an­i­mal product con­sump­tion, it re­quires roughly 1000 leaflets for one equiv­a­lent con­ver­sion to ve­g­anism.

  ACE’s meta-anal­y­sis pro­vides less rea­son for op­ti­mism than the study you re­fer to.

  We can also es­ti­mate the over­all cost-effec­tive­ness of an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy cam­paigns. The US pop­u­la­tion has an or­der of mag­ni­tude 10^8 peo­ple. Sup­pose meat con­sump­tion is de­creased by 10% due to peo­ple be­com­ing re­duc­etar­i­ans, veg­e­tar­i­ans or ve­g­ans. Sup­pose 10% of this re­duc­tion is due to an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy cam­paign­ing… This means cell-based meat R&D is about 1000 times more effec­tive than av­er­age an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy.

  I think that this misses most of the im­pact of most an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy cam­paign­ing. I don’t see the main effect of an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy cam­paign­ing as be­ing to cause diet change in the short-term. Apart from the in­di­rect pos­i­tive effects for fu­ture sen­tient be­ings such as ar­tifi­cial sen­tience (which could ap­ply similarly to cul­tured meat R&D suc­cess and an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy suc­cess), I see the main effects as be­ing:

  • At­ti­tude change (among de­ci­sion-mak­ers and/​or the pub­lic), which makes trans­for­ma­tive change in laws and reg­u­la­tions more likely. I.e. this brings the abo­li­tion of fac­tory farm­ing closer, and in­creases the like­li­hood that it will ever be abol­ished.

  • Wider mo­men­tum for fur­ther an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy cam­paign­ing and moral cir­cle ex­pan­sion.

  • In the short term, there may also be a re­duc­tion of an­i­mal suffer­ing from welfare re­forms, which your model and com­par­i­son hasn’t ac­counted for, even though most an­i­mal welfare or­gani­sa­tions seem to see this as the main pos­i­tive out­come.

• Jamie_Harris 16 Aug 2020 7:20 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Jacob_Peacock’s comment on: Health Be­hav­ior In­ter­ven­tions Liter­a­ture Review

  Yes to the first part! (I was also think­ing some­thing like: If you had read some of the other available ev­i­dence but not the his­tor­i­cal case stud­ies and had 70/​30% cre­dence, then read­ing the his­tor­i­cal case stud­ies might up­date your views to 30/​70%. But that’s a bit messier.)

  And got it with the sec­ond; I think we mostly agree there.

• Jamie_Harris 9 Aug 2020 17:10 UTC

  3 points

  on: In­for­ma­tional Lob­by­ing: The­ory and Effectiveness

  Thank you for this re­view! Ever since I did a liter­a­ture re­view of mostly poli­ti­cal sci­ence liter­a­ture on “Is the US Supreme Court a Driver of So­cial Change or Driven by it?” I’ve been in­ter­ested in com­pa­rable re­views of leg­is­la­tive tac­tics.

  I es­pe­cially ap­pre­ci­ate the sum­mary of the em­piri­cal re­search. Some of those find­ings seem re­ally im­pres­sive to me and that has in­creased my op­ti­mism about lob­by­ing. I look for­ward to read­ing through your spread­sheet with sum­maries of other pa­pers.

  (80%) Well-re­sourced in­ter­est groups are no more or less likely to achieve policy suc­cess, in gen­eral, than their less well-re­sourced op­po­nents.

  I was very sur­prised by this claim… it was part of what spurred me to read the piece im­me­di­ately rather than save it to my read­ing list. But I don’t re­call see­ing ev­i­dence for the claim in the post. What has en­couraged this high con­fi­dence in this claim (which seems very coun­ter­in­tu­itive to me)? Apolo­gies if I just missed it.

  Yet in some cases there sim­ply is no or­ga­nized op­po­si­tion, and a rel­a­tively small in­vest­ment can mean­ingfully al­ter word­ing, put a policy on the agenda, or cause a bill to be­come law.

  The sug­ges­tion for the spend­ing strat­egy in the “Effec­tive lob­by­ing” sec­tion seems to rest on this claim. But again, I don’t re­call see­ing much em­piri­cal sup­port in the re­view; does this rest on the the­o­ret­i­cal dis­cus­sions that you sum­marise? Ac­tu­ally, Baum­gart­ner et al. provide some con­trary ev­i­dence to this hy­poth­e­sis:

  “The table [table 3.1, page 58] shows that a sur­pris­ingly large num­ber of is­sues (sev­en­teen cases) con­sist of a sin­gle side at­tempt­ing to achieve a goal to which no one ob­jects or in re­sponse to which no one both­ers to mo­bi­lize. Iron­i­cally, the lack of coun­ter­mo­bi­liza­tion is a good pre­dic­tor of failure. Many of these re­flect efforts to put an is­sue on the agenda, but these efforts are ei­ther too early in the pro­cess for any­one yet to have re­acted or they are clearly not mov­ing so oth­ers have not got­ten in­volved in the is­sue.”

  They dis­cuss this a lit­tle more on the fol­low­ing pages. They note that 17 cases had only one side -- 15 of these were 1 op­pos­ing the sta­tus quo, none defend­ing it. Un­for­tu­nately, from a quick look back, I can’t see the pro­por­tion of these 15 cases that did re­sult in a policy change.

• Jamie_Harris 8 Aug 2020 19:31 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Jacob_Peacock’s comment on: Health Be­hav­ior In­ter­ven­tions Liter­a­ture Review

  How­ever, at least to my un­der­stand­ing of the cur­rent meth­ods, they can­not provide causal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, thus vastly limit­ing the mag­ni­tude of that up­date. (In my mind, to prob­a­bly <10%.)

  In­ter­est­ing. Let’s imag­ine a spe­cific ques­tion that we might be in­ter­ested in, e.g. do in­cre­men­tal im­prove­ments (e.g. on welfare of an­i­mals or pris­on­ers) en­courage mo­men­tum for fur­ther change or com­pla­cency? ~10% sounds about right to me as an up­per limit on an up­date from a sin­gle case study. But a case study will provide in­for­ma­tion on far more ques­tions of in­ter­est than this sin­gle ques­tion. And as we look at sev­eral case stud­ies and start to com­pare be­tween them, then I can imag­ine an up­date of more like ~40% from his­tor­i­cal so­cial move­ment ev­i­dence in gen­eral on any sin­gle ques­tion of in­ter­est.

  One in­tu­ition pump might be that the health be­hav­ior liter­a­ture un­doubt­edly con­tains scores of cross-sec­tional stud­ies, which them­selves could be con­strued as each con­tain­ing hun­dreds of case studies

  That may be so, but they would be pro­vid­ing ev­i­dence on very differ­ent types of cause and effect re­la­tion­ships. E.g. the effects of mo­ti­va­tional in­ter­views on dietary be­havi­our, vs the effects of in­cre­men­tal im­prove­ments (e.g. on welfare of an­i­mals or pris­on­ers) on a move­ment’s mo­men­tum for fur­ther change. When I’m think­ing about the value of so­cial move­ment case stud­ies com­pared to RCTs, I’m also think­ing about their abil­ity to provide ev­i­dence on the ques­tions that I think are most im­por­tant.

• Jamie_Harris 5 Aug 2020 20:37 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Ben_West’s comment on: So­cial Move­ment Les­sons from the US Pri­son­ers’ Rights Movement

  Thanks for the com­ments! It’s great to see what was in­ter­est­ing /​ use­ful /​ con­fus­ing etc for peo­ple, and gen­er­ally quite hard to get de­tailed feed­back, so I ap­pre­ci­ate you tak­ing the time to read and re­ply.

  
  

  I would not say that ei­ther of these are more “fun­da­men­tal” than the other.

  Sure. This might just be a se­man­tics/​phras­ing thing, or it might re­flect a whole num­ber of differ­ent as­sump­tions we have.

  I think you are say­ing that ac­tivists fo­cused on the welfare of pris­on­ers over the ab­solute num­ber of pris­on­ers, and that per­haps this was a mis­take.

  Yes! Another caveat is that it’s very un­clear whether fo­cus­ing more on the “more fun­da­men­tal poli­ti­cal and sys­temic is­sues” would ac­tu­ally have been a more cost-effec­tive way to help pris­on­ers. (It could have just been in­tractable to af­fect those changes, for ex­am­ple)

  But it sounds like maybe you don’t think the ev­i­dence there is strong?

  Cor­rect!

  I would be cu­ri­ous if you could give some kind of state­ment about how con­fi­dent you are that this “le­gi­t­imiz­ing” con­se­quence hap­pened and/​or how likely it is to hap­pen in farmed an­i­mal welfare.

  I could give some kind of state­ment on a num­ber of things:

  • How con­fi­dent I am that par­tic­u­lar liti­ga­tion in the pris­on­ers’ rights move­ment led to par­tic­u­lar spe­cific out­comes, e.g. that liti­ga­tion in Costello v. Wain­wright “en­couraged prison con­struc­tion, rather than im­prove­ment in the con­di­tions of ex­ist­ing pris­ons.”

  • How con­fi­dent I am that, over­all, the liti­ga­tion in the pris­on­ers’ rights move­ment had some kind of en­trench­ment effect (re­gard­less of whether it also had var­i­ous pos­i­tive effects)

  • How con­fi­dent I am that, over­all, the liti­ga­tion in the pris­on­ers’ rights move­ment was pos­i­tive or nega­tive for ad­vanc­ing their goals, and some kind of bal­l­park guess at its net effects.

  • Com­pa­rable state­ments of con­fi­dence about so­cial move­ments more broadly.

  • Com­pa­rable state­ments of con­fi­dence about the farmed an­i­mal move­ment speci­fi­cally.

  Be­cause do­ing any or all of these things for any or all of the “strate­gic im­pli­ca­tions” i each case study could be very time con­sum­ing, I don’t do it.

  I’m hop­ing that at some point, I’ll be able to do a bit more of a roundup /​ anal­y­sis post, where I look at some of the key themes and lean­ings from across sev­eral of our case stud­ies. There might be more scope for mak­ing these sorts of claims or es­ti­mates in a post like that, though it still might not be worth the time. I’d be in­ter­ested in your thoughts on that!

  How re­cep­tive the le­gal sys­tem is to these challenges is clearly a cru­cial con­sid­er­a­tion for how effec­tive they are, so I would be in­ter­ested in thoughts/​re­sources about the cur­rent le­gal cli­mate.

  I’m afraid I can’t re­ally help here. I did write “Is the US Supreme Court a Driver of So­cial Change or Driven by it? A Liter­a­ture Re­view” and have in­ter­viewed Kevin Sch­nei­der of the Non­hu­man Rights Pro­ject, but nei­ther of these re­sources an­swer this very di­rectly.

• Jamie_Harris 5 Aug 2020 20:17 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Jacob_Peacock’s comment on: Health Be­hav­ior In­ter­ven­tions Liter­a­ture Review

  Thanks Ja­cob! It’s great to see what was in­ter­est­ing /​ use­ful /​ con­fus­ing etc for peo­ple, and gen­er­ally quite hard to get de­tailed feed­back, so I ap­pre­ci­ate you tak­ing the time to read and re­ply.
  

  I’m sure we could de­bate these top­ics at length; that’s a tempt­ing prospect, but I’ll just re­ply to some spe­cific parts here.

  I don’t see rea­son to give up on try­ing to con­duct high-qual­ity studies

  I still think RCTs have their uses. It’s just that they can be limited in var­i­ous ways and that other re­search meth­ods have some ad­van­tages over them, as dis­cussed in the “EAA RCTs v in­tu­ition/​spec­u­la­tion/​anec­dotes v case stud­ies v ex­ter­nal find­ings” sec­tion you re­fer to.

  To sum­marise my view up­date from this re­view in other terms:

  Lots of money has gone into health be­havi­our re­search. I ex­pected the health be­havi­our liter­a­ture to come to some fairly strong con­clu­sions about the value of some in­ter­ven­tion types over oth­ers. This didn’t seem to be the case, given var­i­ous limi­ta­tions and in­con­sis­ten­cies in the re­search. Hence, I’m less op­ti­mistic about the use­ful­ness of con­duct­ing com­pa­rable re­search now, rel­a­tive to other types of re­search that we could con­duct.

  It seems like so­cial move­ment case stud­ies are then limited gen­er­ally, like most ob­ser­va­tional re­search, to un­der­stand­ing cor­re­la­tions and mo­ti­vat­ing causal the­o­ries about those cor­re­la­tions, rather than mea­sur­ing cau­sa­tion it­self.

  I don’t agree with this. I think that you can look for ev­i­dence that X caused Y in a par­tic­u­lar case, rather than just that X pre­ceded Y. (Of course, of­ten the ev­i­dence is very weak or nonex­is­tent that X caused Y.) I dis­cuss that in more depth here. You then have the sep­a­rate prob­lems of How much weight should we place on strate­gic knowl­edge from in­di­vi­d­ual his­tor­i­cal cases? and/​or How likely is it that cor­re­la­tions will repli­cate across move­ments? It’s hard to de­scribe an­swers to those ques­tions in pre­cise and un­am­bigu­ous terms, but I’d an­swer them with some­thing like “not a lot” and “quite likely,” re­spec­tively.

  have you con­sid­ered the mer­its of re­gres­sion dis­con­ti­nu­ity de­signs, in­stru­men­tal vari­ables es­ti­ma­tion, propen­sity score match­ing and prospec­tive co­hort stud­ies, for example

  I have never heard of these things, let alone con­sid­ered their mer­its! I don’t think that in­val­i­dates the view up­date I de­scribe above, though if I look into these things more, it might re­store my con­fi­dence?

• Jamie_Harris 25 Jul 2020 11:10 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: MichaelA’s comment on: Mo­ral cir­cles: De­grees, di­men­sions, visuals

  You don’t need to agree with premise 3 to think that work­ing on MCE is a cost-effec­tive way to re­duce s-risks. Below is the text from a con­ver­sa­tion I re­cently had, where al­ter­nat­ing para­graphs are al­ter­nat­ing be­tween the two par­ti­ci­pants.

  The brief con­ver­sa­tion be­low fo­cuses on the idea of premise 3, but I’d also note that the ex­ist­ing psy­cholog­i­cal ev­i­dence for the “sec­ondary trans­fer effect” is rele­vant to premise 4. I think that you could make progress on em­piri­cally test­ing premise 4. I agree that this would be fairly high pri­or­ity to run more tests on (fo­cused speci­fi­cally on farmed an­i­mals /​ wild an­i­mals /​ ar­tifi­cial sen­tience) from the per­spec­tive of pri­ori­tis­ing be­tween differ­ent po­ten­tial “tar­gets” of MCE ad­vo­cacy, and also per­haps for de­cid­ing how im­por­tant MCE work is within the longter­mist port­fo­lio of in­ter­ven­tions. I can imag­ine this re­search fit­ting well within Sen­tience In­sti­tute. If you know any­one who could be in­ter­ested in ap­ply­ing to our cur­rent re­searcher job open­ing (clos­ing in ~one week’s time), to work on this or other ques­tions, please do let them know about the open­ing.

  ----

  “I don’t per­son­ally see value lock-in as a pre­req­ui­site for farmed an­i­mals → ar­tifi­cial sen­tience far fu­ture im­pact… if the graph of fu­ture moral progress is a sine wave, and you in­crease the whole sine wave by 2 units, then your ex­pected value is still 2*du­ra­tion-of-ev­ery­thing, even if you don’t in­crease the value at the lock-in point.”

  “It doesn’t seem that likely to me that you would in­crease the whole sine wave by 2 units, as op­posed to just in­creas­ing the gra­di­ent of one of the up­ward slopes or some­thing like that.”

  “Hm, why do you think in­creas­ing the gra­di­ent is more likely? If you just add an ac­tion into the world that wouldn’t hap­pen oth­er­wise (e.g. donate $100 to an an­i­mal rights org), then it seems the de­fault is an in­crease in the whole sine wave. For that to be sim­ply an in­crease in up­ward slope, you’d need to think there’s a fun­da­men­tal dy­namic in so­ciety chang­ing the im­pact of that con­tri­bu­tion, such as a limit on short-term progress. But one can also imag­ine the op­po­site effect where progress is eas­ier dur­ing cer­tain pe­ri­ods, so you could cause >2 units of in­crease. There are lots of in­tu­itions that can pull the im­pact up or down, but over­all, a +2 in­crease in the whole wave seems like the go-to as­sump­tion.”

  “Pre­sum­ably it de­pends on the ex­tent to which you think there’s some­thing like a sec­ondary trans­fer effect, or some other mechanism by which suc­cess­ful ad­vo­cacy for farmed an­i­mals en­ables ad­vo­cacy for other sen­tient be­ings. E.g. imag­ine that we have 100% cer­tainty that an­i­mal farm­ing will end within 1000 years, and we know that all ad­vo­cates (apart from us) are in­ter­ested in farmed an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy speci­fi­cally, rather than MCE ad­vo­cacy. Then, all MCE work would be do­ing would be speed­ing up the time be­fore the end of an­i­mal farm­ing. But if we re­move those as­sump­tions, then I guess it would have some sort of “in­crease” effect, rather than just an effect on the slope. Both those as­sump­tions are un­rea­son­able, but pre­sum­ably you could get some­thing similar if it was close to 100% and most farmed an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy efforts seemed likely to ter­mi­nate at the end of an­i­mal farm­ing, as op­pose to be shifted into other forms of MCE ad­vo­cacy.”

  “Yep, that makes sense if you don’t think there’s some diminish­ing fac­tor on the flow-through from farmed an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy to moral in­clu­sion of AS, as long as you don’t think there are in­creas­ing fac­tors that out­weigh it.”

• Jamie_Harris 25 Jul 2020 10:50 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: MichaelA’s comment on: Mo­ral cir­cles: De­grees, di­men­sions, visuals

  Hey! As you prob­a­bly know, I’d be keen to con­nect with them. Thanks!

Health Be­hav­ior In­ter­ven­tions Liter­a­ture Review

So­cial Move­ment Les­sons from the US Pri­son­ers’ Rights Movement

• Jamie_Harris 19 Jul 2020 14:38 UTC

  9 points

  on: Ret­ro­spec­tive on think­ing about my ca­reer for a year

  Nice post. I like some of the spe­cific tips, such as search­ing LinkedIn for peo­ple who had done the course you were con­sid­er­ing.

  Un­less I missed some­thing, it seems like you only ap­plied for 2 in­tern­ships, 2 grad­u­ate pro­grammes, and 2 jobs. This seems a sur­pris­ingly low num­ber of op­por­tu­ni­ties to ap­ply for, given the time you spent ex­plor­ing this. I won­der if there was a par­tic­u­lar rea­son for this. Did you not find the ex­pe­rience of ap­ply­ing use­ful for the ap­pli­ca­tions you did make? Or was it just that there are few op­por­tu­ni­ties in the field(s) you were ex­plor­ing?