Funding Strategy Week
Marginal Funding Week
Donation Election
Pledge Highlight
Donation Celebration
Nov 12 - 18
Marginal Funding Week
A week for organisations to explain what they would do with marginal funding. Read more.
Dec 16 - 22
Donation Election
A crowd-sourced pot of funds will be distributed amongst three charities based on your votes. Continue donation election conversations here.
$25 598 raised
Dec 16 - 22
Pledge Highlight
A week to post about your experience with pledging, and to discuss the value of pledging. Read more.
Hi Pablo. Cause neutrality is "the view that causes should be prioritized based on impartial assessments of impact rather than on other considerations, such as saliency or personal attachment". As far as I can tell, the best AW interventions are way more cost-effective than the best in GHD, so I would say cause neutrality would imply recommending the best AW interventions over the best ones in GHD.
I think that you raise a good point that in a partnership with fully shared finances and joint decision-making, there's a reasonable argument that each partner could view their effective "personal income" as 50% of the household income. This could align with the spirit of the pledge, which is about committing a meaningful portion of one's resources to helping others. Another approach could be to sign the pledge together as a couple. Many GWWC members have found this to be a meaningful way to approach their giving as a couple. You can track your joint donations through a single pledge dashboard, making it easier to manage your giving together. Ultimately, the goal of this advice is to help members stick to their plan of taking significant action to benefit others. All guidelines about how to calculate income should be thought of as serving that goal. In other words, our overall advice is to follow the spirit of the pledge, which is using a significant portion of one's income to benefit others. We recognise that a simple rule won't work perfectly for all possible situations, and encourage pledgers to define 10% of income in the way that makes sense to them. 
Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between: 1. Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost) 2. Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice) While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. It's not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere. So in your example - if someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesn't count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn. There are a few reasons for this approach: 1. Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations 2. Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths 3. Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income 4. Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving What are your thoughts on this distinction? I'm curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.
Dec 23 - 31
Donation Celebration
When the donation celebration starts, you’ll be able to add a heart to the banner showing that you’ve done your annual donations.

New & upvoted

Customize feedCustomize feed
CommunityCommunity
Personal+
339

Posts tagged community

Quick takes

Show community
View more
Reflections on Two Years at EA Germany I'm stepping down this week after two years as co-director of EA Germany. While I deeply valued the team and helped build successful structures, I stayed too long when my core values and personal fit no longer aligned. When I joined EAD, I approached it like the other organisations I’ve worked with, planning on staying 5-10 years to create stability during growth and change. My co-director, Sarah, and I aimed to grow EAD quickly and sustainably. But the FTX collapse hit just as I started in November 2022, and the dream of expanding the team disappeared. This wasn’t the only challenge. I treated EAD as a single organisation rather than part of a global ecosystem where impact shouldn’t be geographically contained. I slipped into a “soldier mindset,” focused on proving EAD’s local value instead of prioritising international scalability or considering where I could provide the most impact. By the end of my first year, I could see that I’d reached the end of what I was best at and passionate about. The organisation was running well, and my full-time input wasn’t needed anymore. But I stayed—because I felt so good with the team, because of my long-term commitment, and because I hoped we’d find a path to grow the organisation within Germany. Meanwhile, I started consulting for Claire Boine at Successif. When she secured new funding to expand, I joined her team part-time. Instead of using this as a chance to leave EAD, I tried to balance both roles—while still running my company, serving as a trustee at EV UK, and mentoring on the side. Looking back, this was my biggest mistake: I didn’t recognise that my counterfactual impact at EAD had become the lowest of all my commitments. Instead of staying true to my value of helping solve the most pressing problems as effectively as possible, I acted out of connection and obligation. This experience has taught me to recognise when to step back and refocus on where my skills, passion, and
I often return to this bit of 80000 Hours' anonymous career advice, about how when you're great at your job, no one's advice is that useful. I like it a lot. It reminds me of Agnes Callard's observation about a young writer asking Margaret Atwood for advice and getting only the trite advice to "write every day":
13
Kaleem
1d
1
I would REALLY appreciate if someone quite good at math (especially distributions/graphs) could hop on (what I expect would be a short call) to help me sort out an issue I'm panicking over
Anthropic's Twitter account was hacked. It's "just" a social media account, but it raises some concerns. Update: the post has just been deleted. They keep the updates on their status page: https://status.anthropic.com/
We just wanted to transparently share that CEA’s University Groups Team is not running two of our historical programs over the next few months: * A University Group Organizer Retreat (UGOR), which was usually run over (northern hemisphere) winter break * Our summer internship, usually run from May - September We think both programs are relatively valuable, but are less aligned with our current vision (of providing value through helping EA university group organizers run better groups) than some of our alternatives. We have made this (difficult!) decision so that we can instead focus on: * Running our Organizer Support Program, a three-week to semester-long mentorship program * Increasing capacity on the team (currently under 3 FTE), including by recruiting a strategy lead for our pilot university work (and building out that work more generally) * Further building out our grantmaking capacity * Potentially piloting new scalable programming * (And more) This decision does not rule out running UGOR or our internship in the future. In fact, we are exploring whether we should run UGOR over (northern hemisphere) summer break, allowing more groups to better prepare for their academic year. We piloted such a retreat as part of our pilot university programming this summer, and that worked well. We aim to continue to transparently share updates such as this one! We are also always open to feedback (including anonymously), especially if you have specific suggestions on what things we should deprioritize to create space for UGOR or the summer internship.