Seems sensible to me. What do you think tyleralterman, if you’re reading this?
jayd
Karma: 67
Good idea. Indeed, doesn’t taking the Life You Can Save pledge seems like a pretty good candidate for a High ask?
Do vegan leafleters ever try to target groups they think’d be responsive? Does anyone (e.g. Peter Hurford) know what conversion rate do they get from those, on average?
What did THINK do exactly, and how did it go? Are they still doing it?
Or indeed many times less than 0.1% - it seems like you have a quite good sense of what the conversion rate is pegged to be, but don’t some people think vegan-creation leafleting can healthily be treated as not working for practical purposes?
Can you expand on that? What is your experience? Is it in the US context?
In addition, politics may be unusually friendly to EA-morality, or at least to consequentialism. Compare discussions of government house utilitarianism.
I would guesstimate at least around 70% were full time or “low income” by this measure.
Is this is a typo? Do you mean “not full time” or not working or “full time students”?
Thanks, I look forwards to reading that. I’ve heard that GiveWell have said that they haven’t found AdWords very worthwhile however—does that fit with your impression?
What evidence could we get now or in the future that’d speak to the different hypotheses being offered in response to this?
Makes sense, but points to meta being an unusually broad and unspecific description.
Doesn’t GiveWell already run a lot of Google Adwords? How well do those do?
Valuable to find out. Does anyone here know them well enough to ask? Or is it on their site?
After the appearances, SCI contacted us to report that they had received several £1000s of donations as a result of our media. The exact amount SCI received as a result of this media attention was difficult for them to estimate relative to the variable background rate, but they suggested it may have been as much as £10,000.
I’ve heard that SCI are consistently over-generous in attributing donations to particular organisations’ influence, because they want their support and recommendations—e.g. attributing all donations in one of Australia and the UK to GWWC.
Interesting, any updates on the numbers of either?
A strong majority thought that all matches were fully counterfactually valid, so if this isn’t true of your match, you should say so.
To be crystal clear for people who haven’t read the survey, people didn’t express an explicit opinion on whether they thought the matches were “counterfactually valid” (using those explicit terms). What they were saying was that they thought more money would go to the charities in the matching cases. (When I first saw the survey it looked like I was being asked a maths problem and I answered it as such.)
Whether they explicitly thought about counterfactuals probably depended on whether they were EAs who were familiar with these—I’d guess that many/most were, since it was posted on Facebook by EAs and would have been of most interest to them. I imagine a typical matching fundraiser audience are merely generally motivated by the matching without explicitly thinking about counterfactuals. I don’t think they take there to be even an implication about counterfactuals, which I imagine is why charities are comfortable with matches (which GiveWell apparently think are typically non-counterfactual). So talking about dishonesty is too strong—not being actively transparent about this element is more on the mark.
Roughly how many applications have you had, and have you heard from anyone who might be interested in funding this?
In most cases I don’t see a compelling reason to fund an individual rather than an organization.
I don’t see the difference between funding individuals and organisations, since you can treat individuals as one-person organisations with a narrower range of projects, and by funding organisations you’re ultimately funding individuals. Some of the things produced by .impact members, which I believe are mostly done by individuals or small groups, compare quite well with those produced by organisations.
Ah sure, but I’m saying that no one gives this sort of money just because they’ve been asked to—it’s too large and long-lasting a commitment, and being asked is not a powerful enough reason or prompt. Asking them to sign the GWWC pledge may prompt them to make this public declaration, but only if they were already happy to give that sort of money.
I’d be interested to hear your reasons if you would be happy to share them.
Listing newsletters for all orgs would be helpful.