Milan_Griffes

His­tory of Philan­thropy Case Study: The Im­pact of Philan­thropy on the Pas­sage of the Afford­able Care Act

• Milan_Griffes 18 Oct 2016 20:12 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How I missed my pledge and how I’m fix­ing it

  I enjoyed reading this, though sorry to hear about pledge-related stress!

  I’m curious about your reasoning behind donating a big portion while simultaneously paying down debt. My intuition is to focus first on paying off the debt, then ramp up giving once you’re debt-free.

• Milan_Griffes 25 Oct 2016 23:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Daniel_Dewey’s comment on: How I missed my pledge and how I’m fix­ing it

  I don’t have pointers to good info, other than Mr. Money Mustache’s blog, which I think was already mentioned.

  I’m following in intuition along the lines of “put on your own oxygen mask before helping those around you with theirs.”

  My bet is that my personal impact will be much larger once I’m financially independent. Giving a significant portion of my income now is a drag on reaching financial independence. I’d prefer to accelerate my progress towards financial independence at the expense of doing good today.

  We’re touching on the “give now vs. give later” debate here; intuitions may diverge.

Should Good Ven­tures fo­cus on cur­rent giv­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties, or save for fu­ture giv­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties?

• Milan_Griffes 14 Nov 2016 6:20 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Michael_Wulfsohn’s comment on: Should Good Ven­tures fo­cus on cur­rent giv­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties, or save for fu­ture giv­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties?

  I basically agree with your critique, though I’d say my assumptions are more naïve than arbitrary (mostly semantic; the issues persist either way). On reflection, I don’t think I’ve arrived at any solid conclusions here, and this exercise’s main fruit is a renewed appreciation of how tangled these questions are.

  ---

  I’m getting hung up on your last paragraph: “However, if it’s 10 or 20, then you’re probably going to be led astray by spurious results.”

  This is pretty unsatisfying – thinking about the future is necessarily speculative, so people are going to have to use “arbitrary” inputs in their models for want of empirical data. If they only use a few arbitrary inputs, their models will likely be too simplistic to be meaningful. But if they use many arbitrary inputs, their models will give spurious results? It sort of feels like an impossible bind for the project of modeling the future.

  Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your definition of “arbitrary” inputs, and there is another class of speculative input that we should be using for model building.

Read­ing recom­men­da­tions for the prob­lem of con­se­quen­tial­ist scope?

• Milan_Griffes 9 Aug 2017 14:41 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MichaelPlant’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

• Milan_Griffes 15 Sep 2017 1:54 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Michael_S’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

• Milan_Griffes 15 Sep 2017 14:15 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MichaelPlant’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  I haven’t engaged closely with your model, but here are some differences that immediately stand out:

  • Your analysis models the a change that impacts the entire UK.

  • Your model assumes that everyone in the UK who might benefit from treatment would seek treatment.

  • Your model assumes that everyone who receives treatment would benefit from treatment.

  • Your model doesn’t include a replicability adjustment, to discount effect sizes due to the limited amount of evidence.

  • As far as I can tell, your model doesn’t include costs of treatment, only costs of rescheduling.

• Milan_Griffes 16 Sep 2017 17:29 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MichaelPlant’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

• Milan_Griffes 3 Oct 2017 1:22 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

• Milan_Griffes 18 Oct 2017 22:18 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Ben_West’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

• Milan_Griffes 26 Oct 2017 20:31 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Rob Wiblin’s top EconTalk epi­sode recommendations

  First world problem – I usually listen to podcasts on the iOS podcast app. The EconTalk archives on that app go back to 2015, a lot of the recommended episodes are older.

  I can download episodes in my iPhone browser, but the in-browser player only plays at 1x. Turns out I can’t stand listening to podcast audio at 1x anymore (needs to be at least 1.5x to be palatable).

  Any thoughts about how to access old episodes at high playback speeds on an iPhone?

• Milan_Griffes 26 Oct 2017 21:32 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diver­sity & In­clu­sion in EA

  Great post.

  Yes, some people broader society now respond to correctable offenses with a mob mentality and too much readiness for ostracization, but just because some people have swung too far past the mark doesn’t mean we should default to a status quo that falls so short of it.

  I think there’s an “in” missing between “people” and “broader”

• Milan_Griffes 27 Oct 2017 1:17 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: DominikPeters’s comment on: Rob Wiblin’s top EconTalk epi­sode recommendations

  Looks cool, but I wasn’t able to figure out how to use this after 5 minutes of trying. Have a little guidance?

• Milan_Griffes 30 Oct 2017 23:39 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: xccf’s comment on: Why & How to Make Progress on Diver­sity & In­clu­sion in EA

  Christine Peterson’s life partner discussion is around 1:17:20 at the above link^^

  It’s part of a broader discussion about supporting yourself while being altruistic over the long haul (starts around 1:15:00).

• Milan_Griffes 21 Nov 2017 1:56 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Men­tal Health Shal­low Review

  Great post; very excited to see more good work in this direction.

  [rest of comment redacted]

• Milan_Griffes 21 Nov 2017 17:37 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: Men­tal Health Shal­low Review

What con­se­quences?

• Milan_Griffes 29 Nov 2017 4:08 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MichaelPlant’s comment on: What con­se­quences?

  Thanks for the thoughtful comment :-)

  This seems like a case of what Greaves calls simple cluelessness.

  I’m fuzzy on Greaves’ distinction between simple & complex cluelessness. Greaves uses the notion of “systematic tendency” to draw out complex cluelessness from simple, but “This talk of ‘having some reasons’ and ‘systematic tendencies’ is not as precise as one would like;” (from p. 9 of Greaves 2016).

  Perhaps it comes down to symmetry. When we notice that for every imagined consequence, there is an equal & opposite consequence that feels about as likely, we can consider our cluelessness “simple.” But when we can’t do this, our cluelessness is complex.

  This criterion is unsatisfyingly subjective though, because it relies on our assessing the equal-opposite consequence as “about as likely,” plus relying on whether we are able to imagine an equal-opposite consequence or not.