That’s the one! OP, I think some version of this is definitely worth implementing/revival. I often share various EA articles on my personal twitter feed, and I know people (for example Stefan Schubert) who share EA articles, which captures an audience (that find the content interesting/engaging) that do not always read the EAF regularly.
I thought something like this already existed but I could be mistaken.
Will check some of these out. Not sure if this fits your criteria but a personal favourite is the documentary about Aaron Swartz.
Thanks for this—one of my favourite blogs!
Few questions (not all directly related to the job, so feel free to skip all/any of them):
How do you think blogging compares to other careers available to you in terms of impact?
Why not set up a Patreon (I’m aware you’ve got some grants)?
Why remain pseudonymous?
Why the name ADS?
“For some projects, a small adjustment could unlock huge academic value.” Would you be able to provide examples please?
Good idea! May be worth reaching out to the LSE Econ PhD programme (I see you’re attending!), who trialled something similar last year for underrepresented backgrounds (in order to get some feedback on what applicants want).
I think a good addition to this would be providing help to people applying for pre-docs as well, given how important they have become in the profession.
I should have added the following statement. If anyone would like a quick chat about researching cousin marriage, feel free to message me.Caveat: I’m still fairly new to the topic (there’s a lot of non-econ literature) but can try to help wherever possible.
I’m currently actively working on this in my PhD (I’m an Economist), which developed from one of my pre-PhD courses. I have a few different ideas and am currently applying for funding for them. Truthfully, this is not one of my core research interests but I think it’s relatively fertile ground for research/publication and I have some nice co-authors that I’m working with, so I don’t have to devote too much time to the topic.
A few points:
The negative biological effects seem to be severe where there is persistent cousin marriage. Otherwise it seems that the impact may not be too bad.
Often the social benefits of consanguinity outweigh the biological disadvantages, particularly in rural regions. For example, some studies seem to show a reduction in domestic violence, greater female autonomy, closer family relations, better retirement etc.
Many of the existing studies are not particularly empirically sound. Lots of selection bias, poor stats, and questionable IVs.
Schulz et al. suggest there’s a link between reducing cousin marriage and democracy, which I find quite interesting (although some have critiqued this). There may also be a relationship between cousin marriage and lower long-run economic growth.
There’s some interesting work being done on potential interventions. For example, the link between education and cousin marriage and the link between a wealth shock and choice of spouse. My paper is proposing an intervention as well.
I strongly dislike this and think it gives off the wrong impression about the purpose of the Hotel.
I like the idea
Think it will work
Also like the idea of using Metaculus to forecast this
In Economics, there’s an account that does this quite well, with a slightly different approach but a somewhat similar aim. It tweets economics pre-doc and RA positions. However, I think people tag the account, and then it gets re-tweeted. Here’s the handle: https://twitter.com/econ_ra
Does this help (from the FAQs? “The lottery is administered by the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA). The Centre for Effective Altruism is a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1149828) and a registered 501(c)(3) Exempt Organization in the USA (EIN 47-1988398). An entry to the lottery is a donation to CEA; CEA will regrant the lottery money, based on the recommendation of the lottery winner.
All grants made are at CEA’s sole discretion. This is a condition of CEA’s status as a tax-deductible non-profit (both in the UK and the US). Of course, CEA will make a good faith effort to act on the recommendation of the winning donor, but it is important to understand that this does not constitute a binding contract, and the final decision rests with CEA.
There are cases where it may not be possible to follow the winner’s recommendation. In particular, CEA is limited to making grants within its charitable objects (and in the US, within the scope of what the IRS would deem an ‘appropriate organization’ to regrant to). Judgements about whether a potential grantee is within this scope will be made on a case-by-case basis by CEA. If CEA determines that it cannot follow a recommendation, the donor will be contacted to discuss and be given the opportunity to provide a revised recommendation.
Broadly speaking, CEA should be able to regrant to any fund or organization on listed on Effective Altruism Funds, as well as nearly all other registered non-profit organizations in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Europe, and possibly other jurisdictions (assuming their organizational purposes don’t contravene CEA’s charitable objects, and we can verify their non-profit status).
CEA may also be able to make grants to organizations that are not registered non-profits, or projects that are run by unincorporated individuals. These requests will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
If you are unsure about whether a potential grantee would be eligible, please get in touch before entering the lottery to discuss (contact details below).”
Quick thought here Jack and Jason (caveat—haven’t thought about this much at all!).
Yes, the creation of new fields is important. However, even if there are diminishing returns to new fields (sidenote—I’ve been thinking about ways to try and measure this empirically), what’s more important is the applicability of the new field to existing fields.
For example, even if we only create one new field but that field could be incredibly powerful. For example, APM (atomically precise manufacturing), or an AGI of some sorts, then it will have major ramifications on progress across all fields.
However, if we created a lot of new insignificant fields, then even if we create hundreds of them, progress won’t be substantially improved across other domains.
I guess what I’m trying to say is the emphasis is not just on new fields per se.
Will MacAskill has appeared on JRE before and probably talked about GiveWell. But yes, good news :).
Aaron, I’m really ignorant about this issue but didn’t Peter Singer have a course on EA a while back that if I recall correctly was fairly accessible and could be marketed towards high school students?
Alexey, I’m also skeptical of the findings but haven’t had time to dig deeper yet, so it’s just hunches at the moment. I have already asked you for the draft :). Honestly, can’t wait to read it since you announced it last week!
What a great question Benjamin! “Why should a longtermist EA work on boosting economic growth? ” Is something I have been thinking about myself (my username gives it away...).
One quick comment on this “I agree Progress Studies itself is far more neglected than general work to boost economic growth”
This spurs a question for me. How is Progress Studies different from people working on Economic Growth?
What do you think EA could learn from the ‘Progress Studies’ movement ?
Thanks for doing this Jason. I agree with your response here. Seems natural to think that there are diminishing marginal returns to ideas within a sector.
You mention APM, which would spur progress in other sectors. Are there ways to identify which sectors open up progress in other domains, i.e. identifying the ideas that could remove the constraining factors of progress (small and big)?
Haha − 15 hours of end of the world music sounds up my street! Here’s one I like, Charles Bradley, “The World is Going Up in Flames.”