This is fascinating. I don’t know if it’s a good idea or a terrible idea, which is why I haven’t upvoted or downvoted it, but it’s a very interesting idea.
Neat study! Can you explain the x-axis for questions 5⁄6 please?
I mean that all research has significant bias based on the researcher’s beliefs and theoretical framework, especially in the social sciences. Some methodologies are more robust than others, and some researchers do a better job of being aware of and clear about their own point of view, but everyone makes choices about how to answer a research question which tend to change the answer you get.
I assume Hauke means something like “not funded by oil and gas,” but I read “completely objective and rational,” which I just don’t think is possible.
Note: The word ‘unbiased’ sets off very loud alarm bells for me. I trust you, so I know you’re using it with good intentions, but if a stranger talked about investing in ‘unbiased research’ I’d think they’re either naïve or selling something. All research is biased.
Because the competition ends tomorrow, I’m curious: Did any of these arguments change your views? Did people say what you expected them to say? Did you get what you wanted out of this exercise? What do you think the next steps are?
“You could imagine an experiment where there are X “trauma-free” people”
I cannot imagine that experiment. I’ve never met someone who hasn’t experienced something at least mildly traumatic.
Peter, when you drifted away from the atheist movement, do you feel like your values and beliefs changed, or was it more about unsubscribing from newsletters and prioritizing different blogs and events?
To what extent are these the same populations? How many people who took the census also took the pledge?
Point of clarification: Those focus groups were specifically focused on people who do attend events, not people who left.
My answer is even more mundane: maybe people don’t give up on the EA ideas, they just stop spending time on the EA census.
Cross-reference this 80,000 Hours article of advice for people starting their career, especially #4, #8, and #14: https://80000hours.org/2019/04/career-advice-i-wish-id-been-given-when-i-was-young/
“Many years ago a friend suggested that for people trying to have a big impact, there might be no more cost-effective self-improvement investment than enrolling in Toastmasters and buying a gym membership. If I were more rational I’d take this advice, and in general the effective altruism community might invest too little in superficial improvements, such as appearance and charisma.”
I don’t know any charities that pay police or build roads. I also don’t think those things should be funded by charities; I think public goods should be funded from the public purse.
I agree with Brian.
I don’t think I’m a typical user, though. I largely agree with the boo/yay theory, based on my experiences with diversity posts.
In order of frequency:
-I strong downvote spam (weekly)
-I downvote people for antisocial behaviour, like name calling (monthly)
-I sometimes downvote comments that are obviously unhelpful or wrong (I’ll usually explain why, if no one else has) (every couple of months)
-I occasionally downvote posts if I don’t think they’re the type of thing that should be on the Forum (for example, they’re very poorly written, very incorrect, or offensive) (a couple times a year)
I agree there are beliefs and belief systems that EA is incompatible with, although my post wasn’t coming from a place of anti-capitalism: even with my leftist hat on, all I would want is to regulate global market failures.
It’s a pretty big leap to hear “global markets make the rich richer and the poor poorer” and assume communism :)
I agree this is an understudied area, but I also think it will be harder to give generic care advice to people with wildly different experiences than to give generic career advice to 22-year-old Ivy League graduates. That said, I’d welcome any career advice you dig up for mid-career pivots!
Downvoted because this is rude
I’m fairly centrist, but if I put my leftist hat on, the thing that feels worst about global development EA is the lack of context.
EA often celebrates individuals who give a lot of money, without recognising where that money comes from. We don’t openly acknowledge how much money Britain and America have gained from the Global South, both in the past and right now. Sure, trade deficits are complicated, but on the surface we’re getting a lot more than we give, and we get a significant amount of interest from developing world debt.
Sure, it’s great when rich people donate to help poor people, but why are the rich rich, and why are the poor poor? EA is always very quiet about that. Maybe we can’t change global economic systems, but it would nice if we could acknowledge that they’re the backdrop to everything we do.
I agree that clean energy innovation is important, I’m just uncertain about focusing significantly on basic research as opposed to taking new innovations to market and driving down the price. Might be better discussed in person.