Though I'm curious as to what would happen here. I would probably tweet 80k stuff in different circumstances if they became written for experts rather than amateurs. There is something very successful about engaged individuals taking and sharing 80k's stuff.
Those who consider themselves as being highly engaged in EA report taking on positions in local EA groups and EA organizations and engaging in the EA Forum and EA events at higher rates than their peers in the movement who consider themselves less involved.
To me this looks like an artefact of the original categories.
High engagement: I am heavily involved in the effective altruism community, perhaps helping to lead an EA group or working at an EA-aligned organization. I make heavy use of the principles of effective altruism when I make decisions about my career or charitable donations.
It looks to me that to self define as a high engagement EA you are being asked if you are lead a group or or work at an EA org. It doesn't seem surprising that the two correlate.
I think I recall thinking this while I took the survey, tbh. I feel engaged, but I'm not sure I fit into that category.
The idea that people who give significant amounts of money by EA lights* aren't really engaged because they don't work in EA orgs or lead groups seems unhelpful. This seems to be the case since moderate-engagement EAs both earn more and a higher percentage say they give. I say this not because it is the most important factor but because it's the one I can see in the data.
I might suggest that in future either this is rephrased entirely to be about "feeling very much a part of the movement" or that the first sentence reads as follows
"I am heavily involved in the effective altruism community. This might mean many things, perhaps helping to lead an EA group, attending a number of groups, giving an amount of money I consider significant by EA principles or working in an EA-aligned career."
I wish I could close a comment by clicking a bar on the left-hand side (as reddit has) rather than only the small plus at the top. Currently if I start reading a long comment (particularly on a phone) it's a far to close that particular thread.
If you were given several million dollars to run a news organisation with positive impact, how do you think that would compare to GiveWell's top charities? Do you think there is a way for funding a news org to be an impactful donation?
The majority of the public (I guess) still gets all their news from a couple of sources. None of the major news orgs have good fact checking and most have blindspots. Do you have any thoughts on how a news organisation could provide an accurate view of the world whilst gaining a large readership?
Happy to do this for you, FYI, other than the upvoting part, which is non-trivial.
Also, this is why I think the job board should be a subset of the EA wiki which is being made. There should be a focus on making it really easy to contribute to, take specific feeds from, rank and search.
I think anything would better than nothing. But yes ideally you could have a number of things to vote on - enjoyableness and usefulness. Or get people to estimate how much they'd have paid to read the book or something. But I think just straight up or down is a good place to begin.
1) Clubhouse is a new social media platform, but you need an invite to join 2) It allows chat in rooms, and networking 3) Seems some people could deliver sooner value by having a clubhouse invite 4) People who are on clubhouse have invites to give 5) If you think an invite would be valuable or heck you'd just like one, comment below and then if anyone has invites to give they can see EAs who want them. 6) I have some invites to give away.
Ideally it would be really easy to link to other pages in this EA wiki. I think the normal nomenclature is [[page]] and if there were a search feature as well, it would lead to everything being more networked.
Maybe shortform posts could graduate to being normal posts if they get some number of upvotes?
Comment by nathan on [deleted post]
Sorry, you're right.
For anyone interested, the video is here
Comment by nathan on [deleted post]
I don't think the coversation here goes that well. Rogan can be conspiratorially minded and so Yglesias (to my mind) tries to correct some of that, which becomes a bit patronising in tone. I wouldn't be surprised if he felt it went poorly. The youtube video has equal likes and dislikes, which is very bad (you usually expect a ratio of 10-100x more likes, I guess) .
I don't think this is particularly useful, but it does show the risk of introducing ideas on a large program which is tonally different to yours - JRE is socially conservative, politically left but critical of the left and a bit conspiratorial, Yglesias is technocratic and wonkish.
But good on him for mentioning GiveWell and good on Rogan for having someone relatively different on. Apologies if this is garbled, it's quite late here. Happy to explain points if necessary.
I think "poll comments" are a normal form of comment which should sit amongst normal comments rather than being relegated to a parent comment. Some people like to show appreciation for consensus statements, others like to upvote very specific blocks of text. This upvote system lets us order the two.