W/r/t the diet question, I think that’s incredibly valuable and useful information for EAA.
That’s likely true, but I presume the reason for considering removing it was that people would feel uncomfortable/judged/guilty and so stop completing the rest of the survey, which would be a large cost. Last year I was happy or even keen for people to know all my other answers, but didn’t want to be judged on failing to be vegetarian.
As to why this is a critique: I worry that the marketing strategy for EA whitewashes how radical its underlying premise truly is: that we owe the same duty to someone across the world as we do to someone right in front of us. Fully embracing that premise can lead us to extraordinarily counterintuitive (and unpalatable for many) places.
That I agree with. Obscuring/whitewashing it may be tactically wise however, and I think there’s been some posts here about whether EA really is consequentialist.
all of those Ivy league graduates who went to work in the charity industry were behaving unethically.
It’s better to say they were behaving suboptimally.
If there were I’d expect them to be well-researched and discussed by non-altruists. I haven’t heard of any, and would expect to have.
I’m sorry it’s been a little while since the previous one (done by Nick Beckstead).
Here is that impact analysis. It’s well worth a read, particularly the section ‘Overview of GWWC’s performance so far’ as this speaks to many of Dale’s questions.
As I understand it, it’s one of the core things that EA Outreach is working on in advance of Will’s book—they raised funds for doing so as part of their funding announcement here. So it would still be using these people for EA Outreach projects.
Are you only going to use people who sign up to promote things the Centre for Effective Altruism is working on, like the books by Will and Peter that EA Outreach is working on (and in Will’s case is even written by the founder)? Are there any specific non-Centre for Effective Altruism things that you plan to promote?
Neat idea to simply set up a spreadsheet for it.
A big question but why?
I’ve heard people who’ve worked at EA organisations say that the people doing that work struck them as some of the most altruistic, because it didn’t have the rewards or glory or fun associated with more visible work.
Here is someone’s initial exploration of a potential criticism: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/805005126222513/?notif_t=group_activity
(A poll about whether a nonprofit with a charismatic and intelligent leader and an unfalsifiable premise of how their charities does good would succeed in getting funding from the EA community.)
Have you written up anything about the 1:1 tools for EA.org anywhere?
Seconded. Also, what are the current ways in which proto-EAs can get one-on-one interaction, and what are the things that we can leverage to increase this?
Currently the only person we know who is working on this full time is Tyler Alterman from Leverage, and we work so closely with him that he practically feels like part of the team!
Interesting—is what Tyler or Leverage are doing written up anywhere?
We’ve been talking with Tom Ash and looking for ways that we can best collaborate with effectivealtruismhub.org, which hosts many .impact projects.
Likewise interesting—what are the options for this?
We’ve been talking with some of the German EAs about their plans to create “superteams” to work on new EA projects.
Would this be the sort of thing that EA Ventures might fund, or are you imagining slightly different sorts of projects?
Yes, that was a good argument that EAs aren’t obligated to be vegetarian, even if reasonable people can disagree about the numbers.
[Your recent EA activities]
Tell us about these, as in Kaj’s thread last month. I would love to hear about them—I find it very inspirational to hear what people are doing to make the world a better place!
(Giving this thread another go after it didn’t get any responses last month.)
Thank you, that review of 2011 and 2012 looks like a very interesting, detailed read. It does seem to cast doubt on the exponential growth model that I was excited about which is a shame, but I still think that could happen. I couldn’t see information about how many GWWC members would be donating significant sums without GWWC on my first read, am I missing that? Will it be in the next impact review?
Ah, great that they make this public—where would I find it, and the working behind it to answer my question?
This would make it especially valuable to get people on the fringes of EA (who’ve been exposed but not wholely ‘signed up’) to take the survey. I remember it was open to them and anyone else last year.