Posts

Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations 2020-05-06T21:29:12.249Z · score: 66 (29 votes)
All causes are EA causes 2016-09-25T18:44:42.347Z · score: 17 (18 votes)
Reflections on EA Global from a first-time attendee 2016-09-18T13:38:25.752Z · score: 24 (30 votes)

Comments

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-22T21:56:25.141Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

On the basis of our criteria, yes. Depending on a donor's personal priorities and preferences, that could look different of course. E.g., for annual donors to these organizations, I think there is a strong case to keep giving.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-22T07:24:56.468Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA · GW

Hi HStencil, we were able to look at all of these as part of the latest update! None besides DMI made into the main post, but we did write up Oxfam and PSI in our big spreadsheet and intend to monitor them going forward.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-22T07:22:01.003Z · score: 4 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Hi all, as promised, we've been monitoring the situation over the past couple of weeks and continuing to learn more about the original charities we investigated as well as new ones that have since come to our attention. We just published an update to this post and have two new top-recommended charities, COVID-END and Open Source Medical Supplies! In addition, we've added Development Media International (previously listed as Top), IDinsight, Rapid Reviews COVID-19, and the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund as promising opportunities, and wrote up reviews for the above charities plus Medical Credit Fund, ONE Campaign, Oxfam, Population Services International, and Give2Asia in our full database of opportunities.

Our group has now distributed almost $120,000 to these charities and an additional $200,000+ has been pledged. Thanks to many of you in the comments who suggested charities for us to review and otherwise added to our understanding of what's going on. We hope these updates prove useful to those still considering donations or other ways to help.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-21T12:46:16.230Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA · GW

Yes, this one has been on our radar since last week and we are planning to include it in our upcoming update!

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-21T04:17:53.362Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Super helpful resource, thank you!

Comment by iandavidmoss on Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations · 2020-05-18T21:05:48.625Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Hi Ray, thanks for these reflections and ideas. In response to your first question, I know someone working with EdTech Hub on this issue. You can find their COVID-19 response here.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Research on Nudging People to Increase Donations to Effective Charities · 2020-05-12T12:47:20.519Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I suggest you check out ideas42's research on this topic. It's funded by the Gates Foundation and there is more work underway now that I assume will be written up at some point.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Would it be a good idea to create a 'GiveWell' for U.S. charities? · 2018-02-07T01:52:12.568Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I support the spirit of this comment: use already existing resources, instead of creating new ones, and don't make the solution more complicated than it needs to be. That said, neither Charity Navigator nor GuideStar currently make much of an attempt to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the charities in their database. They are both moving in the direction of encouraging charities to self-report impact data, but I'm not aware of any plans to use the kinds of standardized metrics or outcome definitions that would be necessary for a cost-effectiveness calculation. So I actually do think there would be a lot of value in an independent analysis of cost-effectiveness within a US framework, even a back-of-the-envelope one.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Anonymous EA comments · 2017-02-08T14:37:23.836Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · EA · GW

This is a great point. In addition to considering "how can we make it easier to get people to change their minds," I think we should also be asking, "is there good that can still be accomplished even when people are not willing to change their minds?" Sometimes social engineering is most effective when it works around people's biases and weaknesses rather than trying to attack them head on.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Anonymous EA comments · 2017-02-08T14:31:43.340Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · EA · GW

I upvoted this mostly because it was new information to me, but I have the same questions as Richard.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Anonymous EA comments · 2017-02-08T14:23:48.721Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · EA · GW

For what it's worth and as an additional data point, I'm a meat eater and I didn't feel like this was a big problem at EA Global in 2016. For a gathering in which animal advocacy/veganism is so prevalent, I would have thought it really weird if the conference served meat anyway. The vegetarian food provided was delicious, and the one time I went out to dinner with a group and ordered meat, nobody got up in my face about it.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Anonymous EA comments · 2017-02-08T14:11:46.492Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

I think I'm the one being called out with the reference to "a non-profit art magazine" being framed as EA-relevant, so I'll respond here. I endorse the commenter's thought that

If we had a notion of 'in this space/forum/organization, we consider the most effective thing to do given that one cares primarily about art' or 'given that one is focused on ending Alzheimer's, what is the most effective thing to do?', then people could spend more time seriously discussing those questions and less bickering over what counts as 'EA.'

If I'm understanding the proposal correctly, it's envisioning something like a reddit-style set of topic-specific subforums in which EA principles could be discussed as they relate to that topic. What I like about that solution is that it allows for the clarity of discussion boundaries that the commenter desires, but still includes discussions of cause-specific effectiveness within the broader umbrella of EA, which helps to facilitate cross-pollination of thinking across causes and from individual causes to the more global cause-neutral space.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Semi-regular Open Thread #35 · 2017-01-03T17:02:09.111Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I would be happy to see them once every other month or so.

Comment by iandavidmoss on EA Global 2017 Update · 2017-01-03T16:58:52.949Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA · GW

Hi Amy, I submitted a few programming ideas for last year's event that weren't selected. I'd like to review and consider resubmitting them this year, but I don't think I have a record of them since I typed them directly into the form. Would there be a way for me to get access to those submissions?

Comment by iandavidmoss on Semi-regular Open Thread #35 · 2016-12-30T23:59:47.523Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · EA · GW

In my ongoing and perhaps quixotic quest to bridge the worlds of EA and arts philanthropy, I have a blog post up at Stanford Social Innovation Review that gives effective altruism a shout-out. I also have a more detailed opinion piece on domain-specific EA coming out in the spring print edition of SSIR.

Comment by iandavidmoss on A Different Take on President Trump · 2016-12-17T02:21:35.402Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

I think I have one more response left in me and then I'm going to call it quits.

Regarding Trump's character: you are still not fully engaging here. You didn't respond at all to my point that we can see him bullying private citizens on Twitter knowing full well that his supporters will rain down harassment on anyone he calls out there. As far as unfounded rumors go, the voting thing is just one of many, many examples, but let's talk about that. I appreciate that you provided evidence for your case, but you failed to mention that that evidence is disputed in what I find to be a convincing rebuttal by Harvard researchers. Sure, the claim that zero undocumented immigrants vote in elections is probably untrue, and I would not be surprised to learn that it happens once in a while. But millions of votes? The backup for that claim is pure speculation and hearsay. I stand by the characterization of that rumor as unfounded.

More to the point, I have counted two instances now in this thread where you have provided sources to back up factual claims you've made that have later turned out to be misleading or downright false. (The other example being the story about settling 1000 refugees on a small island when it turned out that there were just a couple dozen). Say what you want about outlets like the New York Times, but they issue corrections when they get facts wrong, and even employ a public editor to call them out when they screw up. When has Breitbart ever issued a correction for anything? I think that should be a red flag for you to reconsider the relative reliability of the mainstream media vs. your preferred sources. Perhaps you don't know anyone who works in mainstream media. I do, and they are honest people who believe strongly in journalistic ethics and integrity. I understand you have a worldview that is not well represented in those spaces and I support a reasonable degree of skepticism about any source, but when you find your views challenged there you should apply some of that skepticism to yourself as well. That's what we all do.

Regarding authoritarianism, if the best example you can come up with for a worst-case scenario in a democracy is seriously Angela Merkel, I think that speaks for itself. (Agreed that Hitler came to power in a democracy, but it was an extremely compromised democracy and the fact that he immediately moved Germany toward dictatorship supports rather than undermines my point.) The idea of Merkel "destroying her own country" seems, uh, inconsistent with a nation that is the 16th-happiest in the world.

Regarding social ostracization of "thought criminals," that is going to happen in any society, democratic or not. If it's going to happen, I'd prefer that the people who are ostracized are those who cause the most harm to others by their words and actions. It seems from your response that you don't believe in white privilege. I hope you can see that if one accepts white privilege as a reality, than the progressive double standard on racism makes sense and is justified. So it then becomes an empirical question of whether white privilege exists, for which I think there is ample evidence that it does.

So you are correct, I'm not convinced. I do appreciate you being realistic about that, and the time you've put in to explain your views. It seems we will continue to disagree.

Happy holidays (or, if you prefer, Merry Christmas) to you.

Comment by iandavidmoss on A Different Take on President Trump · 2016-12-11T14:28:04.922Z · score: 4 (6 votes) · EA · GW

Since most of the discussion here has focused on Europe, and I'm based in the US, I will address my comment to the US-specific aspects of your response. I am a little tight on time so I apologize in advance for my brevity.

Re: Trump's character I think your rebuttal of Haydn's point here is quite weak. The only source you cite for Trump's character actually being okay is the Collected Work of Scott Adams, a cartoonist who as far as I know has never actually met or spent time with Donald Trump. Adams makes a big deal in his posts about how he has studied persuasion and hypnosis, make claims like "facts don't matter," and appears to me upon reading some of his recent work to be a sophist of the first order. (E.g., in one post he strongly implies that Clinton supporters are silly to think that half the country is having a mass hallucination that Trump is a sane/effective leader; in another post he strongly implies that experts are having a mass hallucination about climate change.) I would not consider his opinion about Trump's character to be any more valuable than those of the thousands of others who have opined on it and come to a different conclusion. As to your point about the media distorting Trump's character, there are significant ways in which our view of Trump is unobstructed by third parties -- e.g., we are able to see exactly what he says in his Twitter feed, including his bullying of private citizens and spreading of unfounded rumors.

Re: Bannon While I agree that descriptions of Bannon as "literally a Nazi" and the like are inaccurate, I do not think it's unfair to hold him accountable for views expressed in articles published by a website of which he was CEO. Similarly to critiques of Trump's candidacy in general, the problem is not that Bannon has expressed overtly bigoted views himself, the problem is that he had no problem helping to foster an environment in which bigotry was condoned, which in turn perpetuates systemic racism. This also relates to your point about policing the term "white nationalism." In general, the pattern that I see among conservative/liberatrian commenters is one in which racism is defined as bigotry; racism is an essential characteristic of a human being, and is an individual flaw rather than a systemic reality; and if one holds a single non-racist view that disproves any claims of racism (e.g., Trump is not racist because he picked Ben Carson for a cabinet post). By contrast, the sense in which people in the social justice movement use racism is as follows: racism is defined as prejudice + power (so in that sense it is specific to white people so long as white privilege is the norm, and distinct from bigotry which can be exhibited by people of any race); racism is characteristic of systems, institutional structures, and specific actions rather than people; people (progressives included) can be complicit in racism even if they do not have a prejudiced bone in their body. These are really important distinctions that affect the way in which language is used and understood, and I would advise against advocating for policing language unless you are willing to grapple with this more complex view of race relations.

Re: authoritarianism This seems addressed largely to a straw man. I don't think many people seriously believe that democracy equals utopia. The quote I most often hear from my liberal friends about democracy is that it's "the worst system of government, except for all the others." I also would agree with the idea that in some circumstances an authoritarian government could be more stable and better for collective wellbeing in the short term than a democracy, especially a compromised and/or divided one. The problem with authoritarian governments is that the downside risk from bad leaders is strongly magnified compared to the downside risk from democracies. The nightmare scenario here is not a Singapore but a North Korea. Furthermore, there's a big difference in risk between some tiny state being taken over by a dictator and the world's richest and most militarily powerful country moving in an authoritarian direction. I take your point that the risks to nuclear war may be overstated in the very short term, but still this does not bode well for a world in which minority rights are protected and truth-telling is valued and incentivized. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a regime like China where not only my speech but my very access to ideas and facts is strongly limited (and please don't come back with the absurd false equivalency that political correctness is akin to mass-scale state censorship).

Comment by iandavidmoss on Cause: Better political systems and policy making. · 2016-11-24T06:17:57.545Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

I strongly agree with conclusions 2 and 3. I am inclined to agree with 1, but am less sure. My main concern is about tractability - influencing policy is hard to do to begin with, and changing the underlying mechanisms by which policy is made is even harder. But the potential impact is so enormous - it potentially has multipliers for every other EA issue - that I'm inclined to think it should be a major area of focus.

Comment by iandavidmoss on President Trump as a Global Catastrophic Risk · 2016-11-24T06:02:09.257Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · EA · GW

A few notes:

  1. I think you give too much credit to the strength of US institutions and their ability to resist an authoritarian power grab by the Trump administration. While the Constitution wisely set up checks and balances to make such consolidation of power very difficult, the two parties have been gaming the system for decades with the overall effect of concentrating more power in the executive branch over time. Consider that the President controls the extensive spying apparatus of the NSA and other intelligence agencies; significant regulatory authority over the conduct of commerce; and a large degree of influence over what information is fed the press, which has drastically reduced capacity to undertake independent reporting compared to a few decades ago. Under divided government, as was the case for most of President Obama's term, these powers can only take one so far; however, Trump will have both houses of Congress ostensibly aligned with him for at least the next two and likely the next four years. Although virtually none of the media establishment in the US is directly controlled by the government, Matt Yglesias has written about how Trump could use his regulatory powers to exert indirect influence over the corporate owners of the major media companies that report on the administration's activities. Twisting the US in an authoritarian direction won't happen overnight and would take a determined effort that it's not clear Trump has the patience for, but our institutions are most definitely vulnerable in the face of a combined and strategic deployment of the resources available to him. For example, what if the Supreme Court rules against him and he just refuses to honor the order? If Congress and the military are behind him, there's nothing anyone can really do. Furthermore, even if Trump doesn't end up installing an authoritarian regime in the US, he could make it much easier for someone else to do so in the future by breaking down a whole bunch of the norms and unwritten rules that have held the system together.

  2. Regarding control of Congress in 2018-20, it's important to note that the Democrats will be defending 25 seats in 2018 compared to Republicans' 8. It would be shocking if Democrats are able to flip either house of Congress in 2018. This makes engagement with Republicans who opposed Trump much more important, in my view. And in my circles, I am seeing very little attention devoted to this, so it seems fairly neglected for now. A big reason why Obama wasn't able to achieve more of his policy agenda during his presidency was because during the time that he had a filibuster-proof majority, the most conservative Democratic senators (particularly Ben Nelson) used the power of their single vote to extract enormous concessions. Just a few Republicans have the same power now, if they choose to use it.

  3. Sticking with the Senate, don't forget that the filibuster is not enshrined in the Constitution. The Senate has the power to change the rules regarding the filibuster at the beginning of each two-year session. There is reason to think it may not be long for this world. If Republicans get rid of the filibuster in order to help Trump, we are in big trouble. This is another instance where putting pressure on just a few Senators can make a huge impact.

  4. Conservatives were able to get to the place where they are because they built a grassroots movement over time that touched every level of government. Progressives, by contrast, have been overly focused on Presidential and Senate elections. State and local elections are extraordinarily neglected as a political cause. Each one does not have a lot of impact on its own, but cumulatively the impact is enormous. Right now, Democrats control only 13 of 50 state legislatures, which is barely enough to fight back against the passage of a constitutional amendment. Republicans have one-party control of government in fully half of the 50 states. Among other things, state governments in the 2018-2020 session will draw the Congressional district maps that will help determine control of Congress for the next decade. One of the reasons why Democrats have had so much trouble winning back the House is because Republicans were largely in charge of that districting process ten years ago. If one wants to help Democrats and progressives, state and local elections, followed by House contests, are where it's at.

  5. On a similar note, it's important to remember that elected officials listen most of all to their own constituents, rather than outsiders. One of the big problems in American society that has led to this result is the social and geographic segregation that has concentrated huge numbers of progressive voters in big cities and blue states where their political influence is limited. A very difficult but important thing to work on will be how to shift attitudes among people who have limited exposure to and little trust of this "other side" of America, as these people have proportionally more political influence in this environment. I am not sure of the right strategy here, but I note that attitudes toward gay marriage shifted very rapidly in the US over a ten-year period, so there is precedent.

Despite my critiques above, I really appreciate you taking the time to write this up - it's an important contribution. Hopefully we will collectively be able to build on it.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Setting Community Norms and Values: A response to the InIn Open Letter · 2016-10-28T03:09:55.413Z · score: 16 (16 votes) · EA · GW

People co-opting the term ‘effective altruism’ to justify activities that they were already doing that clearly wouldn’t be supported by EA reasoning

I don't know the particulars of the situation(s) that Will is referring to here, but as a general principle I think this is a very dangerous criterion to use for community censure and/or expulsion. What is "clearly supported by EA reasoning" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, if the endless debates on this forum and elsewhere are any indication.

I think the principle that Will is getting at is open-mindedness, or a lack thereof. Given that reason is so central to EA's identity as a movement, we certainly don't want to welcome or encourage ideologues who are unwilling to change their minds about things.

To me, however, there is a huge and very important difference between the following types of people:

  • Someone who brings strong opinions and perspectives based on prior knowledge and experience to the community, is willing to engage in good faith discussion with others about those opinions and why they might be wrong, and ultimately holds to their original views;

  • Someone who brings strong opinions and perspectives based on prior knowledge and experience to the community, is unwilling or unable to engage in good faith discussion with others about those opinions and why they might be wrong, and ultimately holds to their original views.

I feel that people who fit the former description can add tremendous value to the community in ways that people who fit the latter do not, especially when their views and reasoning are out of sync with the mainstream of EA thinking. But I would be very concerned about the former type of person being confused with the latter type when they decline to change their mind; after all, if one's priors are sufficiently strong, it's perfectly rational to require a high bar to change one's mind! I worry that attempts to police use of the term "effective altruism" based on refusal to update visibly on non-mainstream ideas would ultimately harm intellectual diversity and be shortsighted in relation to EA's goals.

(Edit: to be clear, I am not against the idea of a panel overall.)

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-29T21:18:10.323Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

People who are passionate about the arts and want to support the arts can already join the community, it is just that if they truly want to be part of the community, then they should be supporting Effective Altruist causes as well, just as you can't become an artist just by hanging around artists, you have to occasionally make things.

I think this is reasonable. I guess the way I would put it is this. We need people in the effective altruist community who can serve as bridges between EA and domains, to help make those domains more effective. The people who are serving that bridge function should really understand EA and buy into its core concepts, including the basic logic of cause neutrality. That said, the people they're bridging to, in the domains, don't necessarily need to consider themselves effective altruists or be active in the EA community in order to do effective things within their domains. They just need to be willing to work with the person who is serving as the bridge.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T19:06:43.599Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

I would question whether 1 is in fact easier. In the case of most of the people I know, I would guess that it's not.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T15:36:29.110Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

That's very kind of you, Ben. I'm not getting burned out, but I am getting a little frustrated that some of my more substantive responses and clarifications are getting spread out across multiple threads when it would be easier for everyone if they were collected in one place. Not sure if you have any suggestions for that...maybe I could update the OP?

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T15:17:29.861Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

(First, really stupid question - not sure I understand the math here? Why wouldn't switching from typical US to good US produce 9 extra units of impact per your assumption, not 4?)

Anyway, regarding this:

At the current margin, it seems substantially easier to me to persuade one person to change cause towards international health and support the best charity in the area, than to persuade 49 US focused donors to choose the best thing in their area.

I think one thing you're not taking into account is that not all EA community members are interchangeable; different people have different leverage within their communities. It would be trivial for me to motivate 49 arts enthusiasts to switch donations to a better US charity in the arts, given that I run a publication with roughly 10k total followers and several hundred "true fans." There are analogous people in other domains across the spectrum. So one approach to outreach could largely involve finding and forming partnerships with aligned, influential individuals in those domains.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T11:56:20.698Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

That's interesting, Carl, I wouldn't have necessarily thought of copyright reform as one of the highest-impact arts interventions, but the consumer surplus angle is intriguing. This exchange is actually a great example of how domains can benefit from participation in this community.

I also want to throw another thought out there: it's not inconceivable to me that we might find the most effective way to support the arts in the world is to, say, give cash transfers to poor people in Africa. Or put resources towards some other broad, systemic issue that affects everyone but is disproportionately relevant in the domain of the arts. If people in the effective altruist community said that, everyone would freak out and think you're just throwing stuff at a wall to get people to switch donations away from the arts. But if an entity with authentic roots in the arts said that, the reaction would be quite different. See, for example, this: http://creativz.us/2016/02/02/what-artists-actually-need-is-an-economy-that-works-for-everyone/ Furthermore, Createquity would only come to that conclusion after researching the other major interventions and causes within the arts that people already care about, so we would have a much more concrete comparative case to make.

As always, everything I'm saying here potentially applies in other cause areas as well. I know we're talking about the arts a lot in this thread because that's my background and what I know best, but I don't think any of this is less true for, e.g., higher education or local social services.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T11:41:12.300Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

Michael, I'll clarify what actions from the EA community I am specifically I am making a case for. I am arguing two things:

1) people who are already invested in EA outreach ought to consider strategies that reach and activate people invested in specific domains; and

2) people who are invested in EA in general, but not in EA outreach specifically, ought to recognize the value of 1).

Now, those "ought tos" are of course contingent upon your agreement with the specific arguments and assumptions that I lay out in the piece. But I am not trying to convince you, specifically, to campaign for domain-specific EA except to the extent that you're campaigning for EA already and not 100% successful in those efforts.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T01:18:49.629Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

Spreading EA-thinking in other domains doesn't provide nearly as much data

I really disagree with this. I think it would result in dramatically more data compared to the alternative, especially if each of those domains is doing its own within-cause prioritization.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T01:07:40.578Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

So, are you arguing that investing in EA outreach in domain-specific ways can't compete or that investing in EA outreach at all can't compete? Your last paragraph sounds like you're saying the latter, but I find that to be a rather nonsensical position if you think that correctly targeted donations are so highly leveraged.

If the claim is that domain-specific EA outreach is less effective per unit invested than cause neutral EA outreach, keep in mind that I argue domain-specific EA outreach will grow the movement faster/more than the alternative, which in turn creates more resources that can be deployed toward further outreach (or other helpful functions, like operations or research). Depending on your assumptions about the ratio between the total ceiling of cause-neutral people and domain-specific people out there, that growth factor could be extremely significant to EA's total impact on the world.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-27T00:39:44.038Z · score: 3 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Hi Ben, the answer to that is simple. EA currently says to donors, "give 10% (or whatever amount you're willing) to the top charities that we recommend. Then do whatever you want with the rest, we don't care."

My claim is simply that EA should care about "the rest," if the goal is to maximize total wellbeing improvement. For many donors, I believe it is not as simple as having two pots, one for which you use your head and one for which you use your heart. In my family's case, we are interested in maximizing the good we do within the other 50%, subject to those top-level restrictions. That is also true of a large portion of grantmaking foundations with professional staff. It all comes back to my point about EA leaving opportunities for impact on the table.

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-25T22:34:02.778Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

If you don't believe that there are other valuable causes out there, or that cause X can be conclusively determined to be better than cause Y, then why do you think cause prioritization research is a valuable use of EA resources?

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-25T22:32:26.036Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · EA · GW

Can you walk me through your reasoning of why the marginal value of encouraging the practice of effective altruism within domains is not likely to be greater than the marginal opportunity cost of doing so?

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-25T21:39:36.902Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · EA · GW

Michael, a large part of my argument rests on the premise that the EA community has grown to the point where it is capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. You seem to be viewing this through an individual scarcity lens where we only have one choice to make about which action we're going to take, and it has to be the most effective one. I disagree. I see EA as a diverse, multifaceted movement with many assets that can be deployed toward the collective good. This piece is about how those resources can be collectively deployed most effectively, which is a different question from "how can I do the most good."

Comment by iandavidmoss on All causes are EA causes · 2016-09-25T21:24:02.287Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Sure thing. I don't have a fully-fleshed-out plan to offer you, but here is an initial thought.

My main suggestion is to implement a kind of chapter-based network (let's assume for the sake of argument that we can figure out a way to avoid confusion with the existing EA-based local chapter system). This is similar to your suggestion of sub-groups dedicated to specific causes and geographies. I think the difference between what I'm envisioning and what you're suggesting, though, is that I am not thinking that the talent and resources for these organizations would primarily come from the existing EA community. For example, in Createquity's case, we are all people in the arts and I am the only one who even borderline considers myself an effective altruist. Yet, the work we do is very aligned. Similarly, there is a large if somewhat unorganized community of evaluators, scientists, philanthropists, think tanks, and service organizations dedicated to effective practice in various domains. (I use the term "domain" here rather than "cause" since I am considering geography to be a potential domain.) It is possible that some of those folks could be converted to working on more global EA issues, but for those who can't be, the domain-specific groups would be a way for them to plug in and put to good use the knowledge that the larger network is generating.

So it would not be a huge drain on existing EA resources, but neither am I advocating that EA take a completely hands-off approach. I think there is a ton of value to be realized from coordination and spread of the EA brand to individual domains. As long as it's always recognized that domain-specific is subordinate to cause neutral, the brand need not be harmed. It's almost like the domain-specific organizations are the farm team for EA's major leagues, both in terms of recommended interventions/actions and potentially for talent as well.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Reflections on EA Global from a first-time attendee · 2016-09-25T02:44:45.477Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · EA · GW

I think there is some truth to the second part of this, although I would encourage folks not to see it as a reason to be dismissive towards people in the strategic philanthropy community. A lot of them have spent decades banging their heads against the wall trying to motivate the kinds of changes that EA advocates, and they have valuable lessons to share from that experience.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Review of EA Global 2016 · 2016-09-20T18:09:25.482Z · score: 9 (9 votes) · EA · GW

Great summary! Regarding location selection, one thing to keep in mind is that selecting based on existing concentrations of interest is likely to have self-reinforcing effects. With any conference, a significant percentage of the attendees are likely to come from the local area, and it stands to reason that those attendees are, on average, likely to have a looser or more casual connection to the community than those who have traveled from far away. That's a big reason why many industry and association conferences choose to alternate time zones, or continents, every year. Otherwise, you might risk unintentionally fostering a strong regional bias to community growth over time.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Reflections on EA Global from a first-time attendee · 2016-09-19T13:13:14.031Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I appreciate the vote of confidence! But I should also clarify that my wavering on self-identification with effective altruism has mostly not been due to lack of kindness from other EAs. I've sometimes been asked tough and direct questions, but I fully expected that and didn't consider it any kind of harassment (with one exception where the guy later apologized). It sounds like you've experienced much worse and I'm sorry for that.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Reflections on EA Global from a first-time attendee · 2016-09-19T00:10:43.326Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

Thanks, Evan. I did see that article, but I think its thesis makes more sense in theory than in practice. The reality is that people coming into these spaces from the outside will think of "effective altruists" as an identity whether we/you want them to or not, because that's a frame that is familiar to them from other contexts. Communities are sometimes defined as much by people outside of them as by people on the inside.

Comment by iandavidmoss on Effective Altruists really love EA: Evidence from EA Global · 2016-08-16T22:21:53.946Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I think the founder effect explanation is definitely a big part of the story in terms of the demographic makeup. However, that does not mean being more welcoming won't help. As a white founder myself, I have learned the hard way that racial diversity in particular must be actively cultivated, and you can get yourself very deep into a hole after a short time because people start to notice the demographic makeup and make judgments and inferences about the community based on it. I was pleased to see more racial diversity at EA Global this year than I expected (although still very few black and Latino participants), but one thing I couldn't help but notice is that there were no non-white speakers at ANY of the sessions I attended over two days. That's the sort of thing that can be perceived as unwelcoming for someone who has made the commitment to attend a conference and has already spent a bunch of time being one of the few people in a room who looks a certain way, and it also shows that it's not just about who expresses interest in EA in the first place.

Comment by iandavidmoss on New version of effectivealtruism.org · 2016-08-06T16:06:31.746Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

On my laptop using Windows 10 and the latest version of Firefox on full screen, the cause prioritization tool has some obvious formatting issues. The text stating "OK, got it. Tell me how to help" extends past the right edge of the button, the text in the modal window seems intended to fit on one screen but just exceeds the space allocation, requiring a scrollbar, and when you do scroll down the flowchart does not scroll with the text.

Links should open in a new window so that you can easily get back to the flowchart after getting more information.

I think the ability to follow along with the flowchart as you're making your choices is cool, but I would suggest that until a professionally-designed version of the flowchart can be created, it would be more effective to omit it if the site is primarily aimed at audiences new to EA. Right now the visual effect is sloppy, with text colliding with lines, etc., and it creates a bad contrast with the relatively more polished quiz next to it. I doubt that most new-to-EA folks will get that much out of having the flowchart there if they already have the quiz to work with.

Let me know if you need me to email screenshots of any of this - I couldn't figure out a way to upload them in the interface here.

Comment by iandavidmoss on A new response to effective altruism · 2015-09-12T20:17:43.498Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I think there's some merit to Reid's 2nd point, although I would frame it differently. The most efficient giving opportunities typically are not local, it is true. However, the relative efficiency of giving opportunities for EAs is defined in part by an assumption that other parties' giving will remain the same (this idea is at the core of GiveWell's "room for more funding" calculations).

EAs do not have the ability to control all or even a majority of donations within their local communities. There's lots of research (e.g., http://www.hopeconsulting.us/pdf/Money%20for%20Good_Final.pdf) showing that most donors are tied to specific causes, contexts, geographies, etc., and don't see any reason to change that. However, EAs might make more headway with this audience by pursuing EA principles within boundaries that they care about. So you're not asking a donor to give up on supporting (say) Seattle, but simply to direct his or her giving in ways that help Seattle more effectively. That approach is much more likely to actually move the needle on donating behavior in the short term, and it's a way to make all of giving more efficient and effective through a network of domains. It may even eventually make some of those inefficient giving opportunities much more competitive with the most efficient giving opportunities.

Remember, I'm suggesting this as a supplement to cause/geography-agnostic giving advocacy, not as a replacement for it.