See also Joseph Kijewski’s description of his experience interning with .impact and what this involves: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/r7/internships_with_impact_my_experience/
Tom_Ash
Yep, it’s not repetitive and will contain fresh information in publications like a newspaper!
What’s the count up to now, counting all sources?
materialism/physicalism [...] is mostly uncontroversial now among [...] philosophers
That’s not really true. For example, in the PhilPapers survey, only 56.5% accepted physicalism in philosophy of mind (though 16.4% chose ‘Other’). There’s no knock-down argument for physicalism.
I can’t access the facebook group, is it public?
You have to join to see posts.
What tools for prediction markets are there besides http://predictionbook.com/ ? Any comments on what features they have or which are best for which purposes?
The only other one I know of is https://called.it/ which is mobile only (h/t John Maxwell).
People may be interested in https://www.facebook.com/groups/eapredictons/
With 75% confidence I’d say that by February 10th at least 15 people will have expressed interest in predictions about effective altruism.
I hereby express interest. Others can do so in a comment under this!
[Here’s some introductory verbiage so nothing hooky shows up under ‘Recent comments’]
ATTENTION: please read this:
To help us test how many people see comments on the month’s open thread when it’s got old, please upvote this comment if you see it. (I promise to use the karma wisely.)
Evan/Leo/Jacy, could you add a description of how to join to http://wiki.effectivealtruismhub.com/index.php?title=Discussion_groups ?
(Does anyone see open threads this late? Say if so!)
I just found out that the Open Philanthropy Project funded http://waitlistzero.org/ which was a small charity started by two EAs who I worked with in its early days. OPP gave $200k, presumably covering Waitlist Zero’s whole budget (way more than it used to be).
This suggests more people creating charities could get fully funded by OPP. Does anyone have any insight into this? Claire Zabel of GiveWell/OPP said:
It’s possible. It’s best if the organization fits into one of our focus areas (openphilanthropy.org/focus); we’ll have an update on these in the next month or so.
Also, whatever happened to the self help group...?
It still exists! It’s linked from that wiki page—I believe the admins Evan, Leo and Jacy have to approve new people.
I didn’t downvote, but for what it’s worth I think this may be a bit niche and of tangential relevance to be a top level post on the EA Forum. The ‘EA Hangout’ or investment Facebook groups would be better fits—see http://wiki.effectivealtruismhub.com/index.php?title=Discussion_groups . People would likely be interested there. I hope this is helpful feedback!
Gamification of EA… I wonder how many achievements I can unlock! You could have an achievement for working at a recognized EA organization for at least 6 months, having donated for 5 (then 10) consecutive years, etc. etc.
There’s been discussion of this and ‘EA points systems’ over the past. Here’s the .impact page for the idea.
actually I’m not so confident about about that, calling someone a “part time EA” seems pretty dismissive
I disagree. I think most part-time EAs would be happy to admit that they don’t try to do the most good with anywhere close to all of their time or resources. If they’re not then, as Rob says, this is an inevitable result of their not being happy to admit what they actually do.
As to this being a distinct concept from full-time EA workers, I think we can make that clear. It’s not a perfect one but a better one hasn’t been suggested.
Oh, I find ‘leader’ much more off-putting and elitist! EA already puts a lot of people off with status hierarchies, fanboyism and hero worship. ‘Part-time’ and ‘full-time’ are the most popular suggestions from the other thread, and are better.
Those are definitely improvements! One issue with “casual” is that it’s a bit negative—and dismissive of people who, say, give 10% or 20% of their income. I like “part-time” / “full-time” the most.
I brought up brainstorming new terms in the other thread at http://effective-altruism.com/ea/sl/celebrating_all_who_are_in_effective_altruism/6cp?context=1#6cp
...though, that said, there is a distinction which makes sense and is useful on an intellectual level. This is the distinction between those who do and don’t take the drowning child argument as a reason to keep trying to increase the amount they give (or, more broadly, the resources they dedicate to helping others), and then do so.
Clearly, this isn’t a sharp division. And different people also put different amounts of effort into trying to keep increasing the amount they give. But it’s still meaningful and useful (intellectually if not PR-wise) to distinguish between people like Joey and Katherine Savoie (trying to live on ~$3,500 a year each) and someone who simply shifts which charities they give the odd hundred dollars to.
I very much agree...
Yep, I came to ask whether people could brainstorm alternatives. Any ideas? Ideally these wouldn’t contain value judgements—the terms that people first encounter are bad places for value judgements anyway. “Dedicated” vs. “highly dedicated” is a very nice idea, but sounds a little too artificial and ‘PC’ to catch on.
See also Sören Mindermann’s description of full-time and part-time paid job opportunities at .impact: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/pw/working_at_ea_organizations_series_impact/