TJPHutton🔸

• TJPHutton🔸 11 Mar 2026 21:54 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA gives per­mis­sion to care about many things

  “If you zoom out, the EA ecosystem starts to look less like a group of people arguing about which cause matters most, and more like a portfolio of people caring deeply about different parts of the problem of creating a better world.”
  I really like this framing. Thanks for sharing!

• TJPHutton🔸 8 Jan 2026 23:16 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: EAGxAus­trala­sia 2025 Ret­ro­spec­tive—It went well and we learnt things that might be use­ful for you

  You’re welcome!
  
  I agree it would be more readable as you suggest. This was a product of using the google doc import function, and not wanting to spend too much time re-editing. I already had to fix all the tables manually as the import function broke them in a bunch of ways, and fix the contents in general as it didn’t copy over nested.

EAGxAus­trala­sia 2025 Ret­ro­spec­tive—It went well and we learnt things that might be use­ful for you

EAGxAus­trala­sia 2024 Public Re­port

• TJPHutton🔸 5 Jun 2023 20:33 UTC

  5 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Na­tional EA groups shouldn’t fo­cus on city groups

  Strong upvote for a thought provoking read, thanks David.

  I’m not entirely sold on the argument as stated, in part due to a different experience with city group attendance—a guess (with no data to support) would say my local group has <25% of attendees attend only one event in a given year, compared to EA London’s 75%; and impact—we’ve had a significant number of regular attendees switch to EA aligned careers in ways that seem less likely had there not been a strong community.

  I agree with a weaker form of the argument, that “National EA groups shouldn’t (primarily) focus on city groups” and as a result of reading this will likely think more about how to add value for non group-members in the future.

  I strongly agree that community builders thinking/​operating on a National level should think about ways to engage with and support EA aligned people who are not part of regularly convening groups (for preference, geography, or other reasons).

• TJPHutton🔸 25 May 2023 12:32 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: 🎲 In­tro­duc­ing The Long Game Pro­ject: Table­top Ex­er­cises for a Re­silient Tomorrow

  This looks interesting and I’m excited to see updates down the track!

  
  I’m a bit late on the discord link and it’s expired. Would you be able to reply/​DM me with a new one!

• TJPHutton🔸 15 May 2023 9:59 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Milena Canzler🔸’s comment on: Con­tact Per­son meetup @ EAG London

  Thanks!
  Is the CH Coordinator introduction event live (and if so can you point me towards it)? I can’t see it in Swapcard or on the Forum.

• TJPHutton🔸 14 May 2023 14:23 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Con­tact Per­son meetup @ EAG London

  The updated time (10-11) clashes with the Community Builders meetup (09:30-10:25) and I imagine there’s a lot of overlap in potential attendees.

• TJPHutton🔸 23 Mar 2023 2:23 UTC

  3 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Books: Lend, Don’t Give

  Despite being an example of “giving is more common” I broadly agree with this post.

  I’d conceptualize it as a spectrum, with “Giving books—no strings attached” at one end and “Loaning with a register and stated return timeframe” at the other end. As with most spectrums the healthy spot is likely the middle and context dependent.

  For our tabling we ended up giving the books to people who had initiated a display of interest, with a conversation with the recipient about reading it and then passing it on to someone else who would read it. Which allows for sharing of the ideas, even if people weren’t able to make it to our events in the future. For people who are already regular attendees, or are likely to become them, I’d advocate for closer to the loan end of the spectrum.

• TJPHutton🔸 21 Mar 2023 2:38 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: lilly’s comment on: Our clubs’ day tabling went well, AND wasn’t that effec­tive.

  I’d say maybe 10% of people we talked to said they’d heard of EA. Most of those were fairly evenly split between “Positive impression after having some form of previous/​current engagement” and “Have seen news about FTX/​SBF”, with some overlap between the two groups. There were 1 or 2 with vague neutral impressions.

Our clubs’ day tabling went well, AND wasn’t that effec­tive.

• TJPHutton🔸 22 Dec 2022 23:21 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: IvanB’s comment on: EA Global 2023 ap­pli­ca­tions are now open!

  Thanks Ivan!

• TJPHutton🔸 22 Dec 2022 21:01 UTC

  10 points

  3 ∶ 0

  on: EA Global 2023 ap­pli­ca­tions are now open!

  After logging in to apply I’m getting the below message (the My Applications page then says “No applications were found”).

  I’m fairly confident I haven’t already applied and forgotten about it in the last 2 hours. (I have previously applied for EAGs in 2022.)

  

• TJPHutton🔸 12 Oct 2022 23:12 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Ask Char­ity En­trepreneur­ship Anything

  Hey CE team,
  I submitted my application a couple of days ago and I’ve got a question about the application process!

  What are the timings for the different stages of the application process, and how much flexibility is there if someone (me, that someone is me) was going to be uncontactable for ~17 days in early November?

  I submitted a version of this question with more details to your contact form a couple of days ago. I haven’t heard back yet and figured a (slightly) generalised version here could be useful (mostly for me to get a the question seen by the right person, possibly for others in a similar position)

• TJPHutton🔸 29 Sep 2022 7:10 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A crit­i­cal re­view of GiveWell’s 2022 cost-effec­tive­ness model

  This was an entertaining, informative, and very well presented read (that also plays well to my love for systems and processes). Thanks for putting it together.

Red-team­ing con­test: de­mo­graph­ics and power struc­tures in EA

• TJPHutton🔸 27 Jul 2022 2:19 UTC

  10 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Joseph’s comment on: Trade­offs in Com­mu­nity Building

  I had an adjacent thought when reading this: Not all your events need to have the same target audience or sit in the same place on the inclusivity spectrum.

  E.g. One week you might run an intro event where small groups discuss cause prioritisation, that’s planned and advertised to be newcomer friendly. Another week you might run an an in depth discussion on a policy submission the group is making that’s targeted towards people who are engaged with the specific policy area.

  I’m not sure if many groups already do this, but I think it can be useful when planning events (even regular weekly events) to explicitly think about who the event is for and to communicate this (either explicitly or implicitly) when advertising the event.