Mini Collection - Non-typical EA Movement Building
Basically, these are ways of spreading EA ideas, philosophies or furthering concrete EA goals in ways that are different from the typical community building models that local groups use.
This quote from Kelsey Piper:
Maybe pretty early on, it just became obvious that there wasn’t a lot of value in preaching to people on a topic that they weren’t necessarily there for, and that I had a lot of thoughts on the conversations people were already having.
Then I think one thing you can do to share any reasoning system, but it works particularly well for effective altruism is just to apply it consistently, in a principled way, to problems that people care about. Then, they’ll see whether your tools look like useful tools. If they do, then they’ll be interested in learning more about that.
My ideal effective altruist movement had insightful nuanced, productive, takes on lots and lots of other things so that people could be like, "Oh, I see how effective altruists have tools for answering questions. I want the people who have tools for answering questions to teach me about those tools. I want to know what they think the most important questions are. I want to sort of learn about their approach."
Collection of Constraints in EA
The Case for the EA Hotel by Halffull. Kind of a summary of the above constraints, explaining how the EA hotel could fill the need for the lack of mobility in the middle (what OP calls a “chasm”), trying to explain the vetting and talent constraints in the EA community. The first part is especially useful for outlining this underlying model.
Which community building projects get funded? By AnonymousEAForumAccount. It raises an important question, but I (Vaidehi) think the analysis misses the important questions. I’ve built off the original spreadsheet with categories here.
How valuable is building a high-quality (for-profit) event app for future EA conferences?
There are 6 eag(x) conferences a year. this number will probably increase over time and more conferences will come up as EA grows- I'd expect somewhere between 80-200 EA-related conferences and related events in the next 10 years. This includes cause-area specific conferences, like Catalyst and other large events.
A typical 2.5 day conference with on average ~300 attendees spending 30 hours = 9,000 man-hours would be a range of 720,000-1,800,000 man hours over 10 years. Of this time, I'd expect 90% to be taken up doing meetings, attending events, eating etc. Of the remaining 10%, so 7,200-18,000 saving 1% of this time is in the range of 7,200- 18,000 hours or roughly seems pretty useful!
For reference, 1 year of work (a 40 hours work-week for 50 weeks) = 2000 hours.
Pricing estimate if we pay for an event conferencing app: Swapcard, recently used by CEA for EAGx events costs approximately USD$7 per user.
Using my previous estimate, the total cost over 10 years would be between USD $168,000-420,000 without any discounting. Discounting 50% for technology becoming cheaper, and charity discounts, we could conservatively say $84,000-$210,000 total cost.
Not sure what to do with this information, or how to compute the value of this money saved (assuming our benevolent EA ally / app creator gives us access for a heavily discounted price, otherwise the savings are not that important).
Given the pandemic, I would actually upgrade the potential cost effectiveness of this, because we can now add Student Summits and EAGxVirtuals as potentially regular events, bringing the total in a non-COVID year to up to 8 events.
Hm I think Swapcard is good enough for now, and I like it more than the Grip app. I think this comes down to what specific features people want in the conference app and why this would make things easier or better.
Of course it would be good to centralize platforms in the future (i.e. maybe the EA Hub also becomes a Conference platform), but I don't see that being a particularly good use of time.
+1 the math there. How does building an app compare to throwing more resources at finding better pre-existing apps?
I'll just add I find it kind of annoying how the event app keeps getting switched up. I thought Grip was better than whatever was used recently for EAGxAsia_Pacific (Catalyst?).
I think CEA has looked at a number of apps - it wold definitely be worth checking with them to see how many apps they've considered out of the total number of apps available, and possibly follow the 37% rule.
It seems plausible, though overall not that likely, to me that maybe the LessWrong team should just build our own conference platform into the forum. We might look into that next year as we are also looking to maybe organize some conferences.
That would be interesting! I'd be interested to see if that happens - I think there are probably a benefits from integration with the LW/EA Forum. In what scenario do you think this would be the most likely?
I think it's most likely if the LessWrong team decides to run a conference, and then after looking into alternatives for a bit, decides that it's best to just build our own thing.
I think it's much more likely if LW runs a conference than if CEA runs another conference, not because I would want to prioritize a LW conference app over an EAG app, but because I expect the first version of it to be pretty janky, and I wouldn't want to inflict that on the poor CEA team without being the people who built it directly and know in which ways it might break.
I plan to keep adding and refining this list over time, I've just put my current list here in case anyone else has ideas.
Movement Building: Any work to build a movement including but not limited to: community infrastructure, community building, cause, field or discipline development and outreach. Movement building does not need to involve using or spreading the EA brand.
Movement building is a subset of "Meta EA" or "meta altruism".
Types of Movement Building:
Community Infrastructure: The development of community-wide products and services that help develop the community. Online examples include building wikis, forums, tools and websites. Offline examples include conferences, community houses, and regional networks.
Note: Some community infrastructure may be limited to certain subgroups within the community, such as events and services for leaders or affiliated organisations. Such events might still provide benefits to the wider community, especially when they improve coordination and communication, and where relevant should be considered as infrastructure.
Community Building: Influencing individuals to take actions based on the ideas and principles of the EA movement. This is often accomplished through the development of groups (local & online) organised by geography, shared interests, careers, causes and more. Local groups are the most common, but certain locations (e.g. "hub" cities like London) may also have subgroups that based cause or career.
Field or Discipline Development: Developing new or influencing existing academic disciplines or fields through the creation of new organisations, advocacy or funding academics to work in this field. Closely related to Professionalization.
Network Building: Developing the EA network to include non-EA actors, organisations and communities. See Community vs Network by David Nash and EA for non-EA People: External Movement Building by Danny Lipsitz.
Professionalization: Giving an occupation, activity, or group professional qualities. This can be done by creating a career out of, increasing the status of, raising the qualifications required for or improving the training given for a occupation, activity or group.
CEA's Funnel Model: A model of movement building which focuses on the different stages of involvement people have with EA, based off of corporate sales funnel models.
Community: A group of people connected by a set of shared values, norms, or beliefs.
Alternative definition: "A community is a group of humans with a shared identity who care for each other.” - Konrad
Ideology: A set of ideas and beliefs that represent a particular worldview.
Network: A group of people with varying degrees of connection to each other.
Organic Movement Growth: Movement growth that occurs organically, without explicit intentions (other than perhaps very broad actions like mass-targeted publications).
Social Movement: A group of people working to achieve a goal or set of goals through collective action. Differentiated from an intellectual movement because of the specification and emphasis on concrete actions.
When asking about resources, a good practice might be to mention resources you've already come across and why those sources weren't helpful (if you found any), so that people don't need to recommend the most common resources multiple times.
Also, once we have an EA-relevant search engine, it would be useful to refer people to that even before they ask a question in case that question has been asked or that resource already exists.
The primary goal of both suggestions would be to make questions more specific, in-depth and hopefully either expanding movement knowledge or identifying gaps in knowledge. The secondary goal would be to save time!
How important is it to measure the medium term (5-50 years) impact of interventions?
I think that taking the medium-term impact into account is especially lacking in the meta space, since building out infrastructure is exactly the kind of project that could take several years to set up with little progress before gains are made.
I'd also be interested in how many /which organisations plan to measure their impact on this 5-50 year timescale. I think it would be very interesting to see the impact of various GH&D charities on a 5 or 10 year timescale.
The Local Career Advice Network recently completed a pilot workshop to help group organiers develop and implement robust career 1-1 strategies. During this process we compiled all existing EA careers advice & strategy, and found several open questions. This post provides an overview of the different kinds of careers research one could do. We will write more posts trying to explain the value of the different kinds of research.
I think movement-level advice is most useful for setting movement-level strategy, rather than informing individual actions because personal fit considerations are quite important. However, I think this has the consequence that some paths are much more clearly defined than others, making it difficult for people who don't have those interests to define a path.
The day before Giving Tuesday, I made a donation to a EA Facebook charity that had seen no donations in a few weeks. After I donated to about 3 other people donated within the next 2 hours (well before the Giving Tuesday start time). From what I remember, the total amount increased by more than the minimum amount and the individuals appeared not to be affiliated with EA, so it seems possible that this fundraiser might have somehow been raised to their attention. (Of course it's possible that with Giving Tuesday approaching they would have donated anyway.)
However, it made think that regularly donating to fundraisers could keep them on people's feeds inspire them to donate, and that this could be a pretty low-cost experiment to run. Since you can't see amounts, you could donate the minimum amount on a regular basis (say every month or so - about $60 USD per year). The actual design of the experiment would be fairly straight forward as well: use the previous year as a baseline of activity for a group of EA organisations and then experiment with who donates, when they donate, and different donation amounts. If you want to get more in-depth you could also look at other factors of the individual who donates (i.e. how many FB friends they have).
Using EA Giving Tuesday's had 28 charities that people could donate to. Of that, you could select 10 charities as your controls, and 10 similar charities (i.e. similar cause, intervention, size) as your experimental group, and recruit 5 volunteer donors per charity to donate once a month on a randomly selected day. They would make the donation without adding any explanation or endorsement.
Then you could use both the previous year's data and the current year's controlled charities to compare the effects. You would want to track whether non-volunteer donations or traffic was gained after the volunteer donations.
Caveats: This would be limited to countries where Facebook Fundraising is set up.
What are the low-hanging fruit or outliers of EA community building?
(where community building is defined as growing the number of engaged EAs who are likely to take medium-to-large sized actions in accordance to the EA values and/or framework. it could include group activities, events, infrastructure building, resource)
Low hanging fruits
I think introductory fellowships are extreme outlier interventions. EA Philippines' 8-week Intro to EA Discussion Group (patterned after Stanford's Arete fellowship) in May-July 2020 was by far our best activity yet. 31 signed up and 15 graduated, and out of the graduates, I believe we've created the following counterfactual impact:
EA Blue is now doing an Introductory Fellowship similar to ours with 26 participants, which I'm a facilitator for, and I think we're having similarly good results!
I don't have an answer, but I'm curious - why don't you publish it as a proper post?
This is a very rough post and I don't know how much I would stick to this framing of the question if I spent more time thinking it over!
Makes sense, even though it feels alright to me as a post :)
I'd really like to see more answers to this question!
After one year of applying for EA jobs: It is really, really hard to get hired by an EA organisation by EA Applicant. Most upvoted post on the forum, sparked a lot of recent discussion on the topic. 8 commenters resonated with OP on the time investment and/or disappointment (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). There were 194 unique upvotes.
My mistakes on the path to impact by Denise Melchin. Another highly upvoted post talking about the emphasis on working at EA organisations and direct EA work. There were 161 unique upvotes. Resonated comments (1,2,3,4,5)
Effective Altruism and Meaning in Life by extra_ordinary. A personal account of the talent gaps, and why the OP moved away from this because too much of their self-worth was associated with success in EA-related things. 4 comments in support of the post. Resonated comments (1,2). There were 55 unique upvotes.
EA’s Image Problem by Tom Davidson. 4 years old but the criticisms are still relevant. See also many comments.
You could add this recent post to the list: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ptFkbqksdPRNyzNBB/can-i-have-impact-if-i-m-average
I brainstormed a list of questions that might help evaluate how promising climate change adaptation efforts would be.
Would anyone have any additions/feedback or answers to these questions?
Is anyone aware of/planning on doing any research related to the expected spike in interest for pandemic research due to COVID? It would be interesting to see how much new interest is generated, and for which types of roles (e.g. doctors vs researchers). This could be useful to a) identify potential skilled biosecurity recruits b) find out what motivated them about COVID-19 c) figure out how neglected this will be in 5-10 years I'd imagine doing a survey after the pandemic starts to die down might be more valuable than right now (maybe after the second wave) so that we're tracking the longer-term impact rather than the immediate reactions. An MVP version could be just looking at application rates across a variety of relevant fields.
Having done some research on post-graduate education in the past, it's surprisingly difficult to access application rates for classes of programs. Some individual schools publish their application/admission rates, but usually as advertising, so there's a fair bit of cherry picking. It's somewhat more straightforward to access completion rates (at least in the US, universities report this to government). However, that MVP would still be interesting with just a few data points: if any EAs have relationships to a couple relevant programs (in say biosecurity, epidemiology), it may be worth reaching out directly in 6-12 months!
A more general point, which I've seen some discussion of here, is how near-miss catastrophes prepare society for a more severe version of the same catastrophe. This would be interesting to explore both theoretically (what's the sweet spot for a near-miss to encourage further work, but not dissuade prevention policies) and empirically.
One historical example might be, for example, does a civilization which experienced a bad famine experience fewer famines in a period following that bad famine? How long is that period? In particular, that makes me think of MichaelA's recently excellent Some history topics it might be very valuable to investigate.
In the UK could you access application numbers with a Freedom of Information request?
Status: Very rough, I mainly want to know if there's already some research/thinking on this.
Further research on this topic that could verify my hypothesis:
My sense is that the idea of sequential stages for moral development is exceedingly likely to be false and in the case of the most prominent theory of this kind, Kolhlberg's, completely debunked in the sense that there was never any good evidence for it (I find the social intuitionist model much more plausible), so I don't see much appeal to trying to understand cause selection in these terms.
That said, I'm sure there's a rough sense in which people tend to adopt less weird beliefs before they adopt more weird ones and I think that thinking about this in terms of more/less weird beliefs is likely more informative than thinking about this in terms of more/less distant areas in a "moral circle".
I don't think there's a clear non-subjective sense in which causes are more or less weird though. For example, there are many EAs who value the wellbeing of non-actual people in the distant future and not suffering wild animals and vice versa, so which is weirder or more distant from the centre of this posited circle? I hear people assume conflicting answers to this question from time to time (people tend to assume their area is less weird).
I would also agree that getting people to agree to beliefs which are less far from what they currently believe can make them more positively inclined to subsequently adopt beliefs related to that belief which are further from their current beliefs. It seems like there are a bunch of non-competing reasons why this could be the case though. For example:
Notably none of these require that we assume anything about moral circles or general sequences of belief.
Yeah I think you're right. I didn't need to actually reference Piaget (it just prompted the thought). To be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that Piaget/Kohlberg's theories were correct or sound, but rather applying the model to another issue. I didn't make that very clear. I don't think my argument really requirs the empirical implications of the model (especially because I wasn't trying to imply moral judgement that one moral circle is necessary better/worse). However I didn't flag this. [meta note: I also posted it pretty quickly, didn't think it through it much since it's a short form]
I broadly agree with all your points.
I think my general point of x,10x,100x makes more sense if you're looking along one axes (eg. A class of beings like future humans) rather than all the ways you can expand your moral circle - which I also think might be better to think of as a sphere or more complex shape to account for different dimensions/axes.
I was thinking about the more concrete cases where you go from cats and dogs -> pigs and cows or people in my home country -> people in other countries.
Re the other reasons you gave:
Sometimes belief x1 itself gives a person epistemic reason to believe x2
I think this is kind of what I was trying to say, where there can be some important incremental movement here. (Of course if x2 is very different from x1 then maybe not).
Sometimes believing x1 increases your self-identity as a person who believes weird things, making you more likely to believe weird things
This is an interesting point I haven't thought much about.
Sometimes believing x2 increases your affiliation with a group associated with x1 (e.g. EA) making you more likely to believe x3 which is also associated with that group
I think this is probably the strongest non-step-wise reason.
If longtermism is one of the latest stages of moral circle development than your anecdotal data suffers from major selection effects.
Anecdotally seems true from a number of EAs I've spoken to who've updated to longtermism over time.