Comment by peterslattery on Announcing EA Hub 2.0 · 2019-04-09T09:32:58.059Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · EA · GW

New idea! It could be useful to ask members to fill out much of the information contained in the EA survey. And indicate which local groups they attend. Not mandatory of course. It might also be useful to ping local leads if a new person registers and indicates that they haven't attended a local group event.

Comment by peterslattery on Announcing EA Hub 2.0 · 2019-04-09T09:29:39.446Z · score: 10 (5 votes) · EA · GW

I agree that we need some engagement loop/clear use case to keep this going. Could we host the annual survey on the hub? Or base some of the responses on the hub index? That could both lead more people to visit and register on the hub and also reduce the effort to fill the survey. It might also help us collect more accurate information in some aspects, for example with reference to membership numbers.

Comment by peterslattery on Announcing EA Hub 2.0 · 2019-04-09T09:24:49.964Z · score: 12 (7 votes) · EA · GW

(on phone so don't judge my style :p) Nice work! Thanks for all of your time and effort.

Some quick thoughts. It might be good to post about the new hub in all of the groups you have listed. When doing that you could ask the members to add their details and check/update their group details.

Would be great to be able to bulk message all profiles in a given area (perhaps it should require contracting an admin to avoid spamming), for example in relation to upcoming local conferences or big events.

It could be good to ask new signups if they know any groups that are missing. Also when promoting the new. I see that there are a few missing in Australia, like Newcastle, Cairns Wollongong and Tasmania. If easy/sensible please bring back the map features for profiles. It would be really useful to be able to find the EAs in a postcode etc.

Thanks again :)

Comment by peterslattery on Profiting-to-Give: harnessing EA talent with a new funding model · 2019-03-04T22:12:41.376Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

I strongly agree with a lot of this idea. Thanks for sharing!

Comment by peterslattery on Positly wants to accelerate social science research and have a greater impact within the EA community… and you can help · 2018-07-06T03:47:20.421Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

This sounds very interesting. How does it compare to alternative recruitment platforms?

Comment by peterslattery on EA database/reading list: Why it might be useful · 2016-07-27T01:22:37.640Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA · GW

I approve of this idea. In terms of how to do it: How about updating the EA wiki based on all of the sources? You could do it alone and with volunteers. Additionally, what about making the wiki more publicly known by using SEO and other techniques?

I also think we should have a stack exchange for EA so, if you agree, you could work on helping that to happen.

Comment by peterslattery on Month-long EA movement building experiment: Effective Altruism: Grow · 2016-07-07T02:31:03.442Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

The link to EA Global does not work (In: if you nominate someone to attend EA Global and they complete their application)

Comment by peterslattery on The Science of Effective Fundraising: Four Common Mistakes to Avoid · 2016-04-25T00:56:42.291Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · EA · GW

Hi Vipul,

Thank you for your comprehensive and well thought out comment. Sorry for my delay in response - I have been sick and busy.

The aim of this article, at least for me, was to provide some sort of a wiki-how for how to generally be effective at fundraising. I think it does a reasonable job in that regard and I am not sure if a discussion of tradeoffs would fit well with the format and aims.

With that said, I think that your insights are very valuable for us to consider. You have made several points that I realize I need to think more about (for example the differences in operational costs for different approaches, and the need to consider the amount that EAs give as an argument against their small numbers). Thanks for that. In particular I now recognise to a greate extent the potential tradeoff issues for arguments 2 & 4 as these points related to approaches that might work better for the general public but be less effective at persuading EAs. For 1 I think that there is no serious challenge, nor tradeoff, in combining statistics and emotional persuasion - most of the givewell charities do this to differing extents.

I will definitely consider writing a follow up article which discussed potential tradeoffs in more detail. Even if I don't directly build on the above article I will keep the comments in mind when writing/advising about similar topics.

Comment by peterslattery on The Science of Effective Fundraising: Four Common Mistakes to Avoid · 2016-04-13T03:59:32.282Z · score: 0 (2 votes) · EA · GW

Thanks zdgroff :)

To my knowledge, all of these, bar matching, are good rules of thumb to work off for virtually all contexts where you are attempting to encourage prosocial (i.e., helping/other serving) behavior (i.e., volunteering, philanthropy, or activism on behalf of others) to the general public.

However, as Gleb points out, the most effective persuasion is very much about tailoring the appeal to the specific context, such as the people involved. For instance, if you were targeting people who were low in persuadability, high in persuasion knowledge, or need for cognition etc., then you might be better off going with something that focused on statistical/quantitative information rather than creating empathy by focusing on individual victims. That sort of target audience might see through this and be unaffected, or even dissuaded as they experience reactance at feeling manipulated.

Once I can free up some time, I intend to produce a lot more of persuasion guidelines, hopefully with Gleb and other collaborators (if I can keep/get them).