Done! Thanks for working on this! Do the other links still work fine?
I’ve set up a system for buying books for people on request. If people are interested in using it you can read more and express interest here: https://bit.ly/eabooksdirect
I track my time using hourstack.com and try to be quite strict with only tracking ‘sit down work time’. I normally can do around 3.5-4h of work a day. I normally start at 10am and finish around 5pm.
This matches my experience at college, where I found I could normally do around 4 hours of studying before feeling tired out.
It’s easier for me to ‘clock more hours’ when I have more meetings. But I try to avoid meetings.
I find that I can get most of my things done within this time and would consider myself a quite productive person.
Thanks for explaining your view! I don’t really have super strong views here, so don’t want to labour the point, but just thought I’d share my intuition for where I’m coming from. For me it makes sense to have a thresholds at the places because it does actually carve up the buckets of reactions better than the linear scale suggests.
For example, some people feel weird rating something really low and so they “express dislike” by rating it 6⁄10. So to me the lowest scorers and the 6/10ers are actually probably have more similar experiences than their linear score suggests. I claim this is driven by weird habits/something psychological of how people are used to rating things.
I think there’s a similar thing at the 7/8/9 distinction. I think when people think something is “okay” they just rate it 7⁄10. But when someone is actually impressed by something they rate it 9⁄10, which is only 2 points more but actually captures a quite different sentiment. From experience also I’ve noticed some people use 9⁄10 in place of 10⁄10 because they just never give anything 10⁄10 (e.g they understand what it means for something to be 10⁄10 differently to others)
The short of it is that I claim people don’t seem to use the linear scale as an actual linear scale , and so it makes sense to normalise things with the thresholds, and I claim that the thresholds are at the right place mostly just from my (very limited) experience
Thanks! I guess I think NPS is useful precisely because of those threshold effects, but agree not sure that it handles the discrimination between 6 and 1 well. Histograms seem great!
Would you be able to provide a Net Promoter Score analysis of your Likelihood to Recommend metrics? I find NPS yields different, interesting information from an averaged LTR and should be very straightforward to compute.
Hey Brian. I’d have to ask the individuals who wrote up their docs, but the plan is definitely to eventually share more of these type of group writeups widely. They weren’t written with a broad audience in mind, but I feel like several leaders would be keen to share their writeups more publicly after cleaning them up a bit. I’ll nudge people on this and ask if they’re keen
Thanks for the feedback! Will add some costs in
Thanks for the great comment and suggestions!
Some more discussion on competitive debating and EA https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DEuYo4zxDyY7h7n74/debate-and-effective-altruism-friends-or-foes
Minor typo: “it’s often to reasonable to act on the assumption” probably should be “it’s often reasonable to act on the assumption”
A small and simple change that CEA could do is to un-bold the ‘Effective’ in their ‘Effective Altruism’ logo which is used on https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ and EAG t-shirts
I find the bold comes across as unnecessarily smug emphasis in Effective Altruism.
I think you might have accidentally linked to the 2019 report. The 2020 report seems to be here https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/govai/govai-2020-annual-report/
This seems to have strands of:
‘rich people focused’ ‘rich people are more moral’
Nice! Could you do a version which is 70% lower resolution? ὠ1
It might be that SF has more people who are kinda into EA such that they donate 10% to givewell, diluting out the people who are representative of more extreme self sacrifice
Interesting about the idea that EA let’s people off the moral hook easily: ‘I’m rich so I just donate and I’ve done my moral duty and get to virtue signal’
It’s interesting how that applies to people who are wealthy, work a conventional job, and donate 10% to charities, but doesn’t seem like a valid criticism against those who donate way more like 50%+. That normally seems to be met with the response “wow that’s impressive self sacrifice!”. Same with those who might drastically shift their career
‘Charity for nerds’ doesn’t sound like an awful low res version compared to others suggested like ‘moral hand-washing for rich people’.
‘Charity for nerds’ has nice properties like:
it’s okay if you’re not into EA (maybe you’re just not nerdy enough), compared to ‘EA things you’re evil if you don’t agree with EA’
selects for nerdy people, who are willing to think hard about their work