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: 1 (1 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).