A Social-Organizational Psychology Ph.D. candidate.
Research interests: animal advocacy, promoting plant-based choices—possibly with AI, and alternative proteins.
Skills: SPSS, Jamovi, and R.
Rakefet Cohen Ben-Arye
Karma: 146
Good Food Institute (GFI), since it has made significant strides, as highlighted in my video based on their report.
In summary, some of GFI’s notable accomplishments include:
1. Receiving President Biden support in setting alternative protein as a focus area
2. Raising awareness to alternative protein at the UN’s COP27 climate conference
3. Collaborating with Upside Foods on chicken substitutes
4. Awarding $4 million in research grantsThese achievements demonstrate GFI’s impact on advancing sustainable food solutions.
My answer would remain the same for small and large donations.
We shouldn’t let the “Drop in the ocean” mentality discourage us as much as it often does. Whether you accomplish something on your own and can claim full credit, or as part of a group where you’re one of many contributors, what truly matters is that you achieve your goal.
Thank you for highlighting our research! Check out the post we wrote about it in this forum.
I believe these are several successful applications of the identifiable victim effect: Maxine’s Dash for Freedom, Okja, Babe, and Axel, Calf 269.
Some pitfalls to avoid, in my opinion:
• Some people seem to care specifically for the identified victim, like calf 269, rather than realizing they represent other sentient beings with their own stories and backgrounds.
• The identifiable victim effect doesn’t impact everyone equally: individual differences in analytic processing style affect how different request types influence donations. Less-analytic thinkers donate more to a single identified victim than statistical victims or a combination; more-analytic thinkers showed no differences. This seems to be the story of our (analytical) movement. I think the curse of knowledge prevents us from understanding how little others know about biases, like the identified victim effect. We assume everyone is as rational as us and don’t fully grasp the potential of a story about a single individual with a name and face.
What makes a single individual identifiable?
It can range from simply referring to them as the victim to creating a full-length film, and I suspect the film would be more effective (...)
But we don’t always approach it this way. We often use a description that could apply to any cow in the dairy industry, just changing the name: This is Sarah. She produces nearly 11,000 gallons of milk—more than 200,000 cups—during her lifetime. Her calf will be taken away from her within hours of birth.
For fish, it’s even worse—we describe them as masses and focus on the ecological damage, overlooking the animals themselves.
How many words could you use to describe your pet’s personality?
I can describe two of our rabbits:
Judie is promotion-driven. She’s always looking for treats. She’s intelligent and responds to her name. Her favorite snack is cranberries; while eating, she’s always searching for the source of her treats, not just focusing on what’s in front of her. She’s friendly, seeks company, is peaceful, and gets along with others. She’s self-confident and happy.
Gaya is more prevention-driven. She’s shy and looks for hiding spots. She seeks tunnels and security and doesn’t get along with others. Nevertheless, she was the first to learn to play with a ball and get treats. Ball games became her favorite activity after she successfully found treats during her first play. She’s more reserved and trusts her closer circle of friends.
We should be able to provide that description level for any identified victim.
Hi, thanks so much for being here! Could you please talk me through the rationale for assigning moral value to non-human animals?
This is a masterpiece.
These were the key points for me from the article:Unitarianism: the view that the moral value of welfare is independent of a being’s species. Even if we value one unit of human welfare one hundred times more than one unit of another animal’s welfare, the conclusion still supports prioritizing animal welfare
1$=200 hens: corporate campaigns can spare over 200 hens from cage confinement for each dollar spent, according to GiveWell.
1,000: The average cost-effectiveness of cage-free campaigns is on the order of 1,000 times that of GiveWell’s top charities. Even if the campaigns’ marginal cost-effectiveness is ten times worse than the average, it would still be one hundred times more cost-effective
17%: Open Philanthropy has allocated an average of only 17% of its neartermist funding to animal welfare each year
Controversial: Yes, animal welfare is “controversial,” but so is AI risk, which is one of Open Philanthropy’s priorities.
I would like to add that if you perform an intervention to shift society towards a more plant-based diet, you have solved all of the animal’s problems as opposed to the case in which you prevented malaria, for example, in which some problems for the same individual still remain.
I was recommended Perplexity for looking for course materials.
You can search academic databases, as well as perform broad searches on the web or YouTube.Provide context like ChatGPT does. For your purpose, mention that you are building a course on artificial intelligence and psychology and give details about it.
Hi Seth, that’s really interesting!
I noticed you’ve included the default effect in your work. I have some article summaries that might be helpful, especially if you’re still in the process of reviewing additional papers.
In fact, we’re planning to measure actual plant-based choices in our next experiment, so your insights are particularly valuable!
Thumbs up!
I run 3 Facebook pages but I still use now Stay Focused. Recommended!
Hi,
I’m a Psychology graduate.
If you or anyone else from Effective Altruism is struggling, please contact me! ♥
I’m not a clinical psychologist (I’m currently a social psychology MA student) but I started up my studies because I love people and want to help them. So at least I can listen (on Skype / Whatsapp).
My Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OpnCgs
Done. Thanks a lot for your post!
I think it also depends on what you already have and how much you think you can improve.
From Social Psychology I know that personality rarely changes. Skills do.
So if you are an inrovert (which is by the way, the most stable characteristic), not agreeable, not consciouscious (meaning not hard working), not open to experience (uncurious) or neurotic, sadly there is a little to be done about it.
You can improve little “islands” in your personality, like setting clear goals as a leader (I guess), but a lot of soft skills are ranging between obvious to easier said than done.
Is the soft skill too easy for you? Is it too hard? I guess the best fit will be a challenging skill—a bit too hard for you to step out of your comfort zone, but not to be overwhelmed.
I would really love to see the Good Food Institute (GFI) included on the list as well!