Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Ree3
2
0

As you point out in your post, this project would have the most impact if it encourages people who aren't likely to engage in earn-to-give or an effective career to pursue an independent project. As such, I'd suggest that it would be better not to tie the podcast too closely to the EA brand, or assume prior knowledge of EA. The title you're using at the moment would seem pretty confusing to anyone not already in the EA community.

I've been thinking quite a lot about something similar recently - not a podcast specifically, but a way to engage people outside the elitist circles that the EA movement tends to target in high impact projects. I'd love to chat to you directly if you're interested in pursuing this.

Reply
Stan Pinsent1
0
0

Thanks for your thoughts. You make a good point - EA can be pretty alienating. There's a trade-off: Within the EA community there is a ready-made audience, probably lots of potential guests, less of a need to explain foundational concepts. But less potential impact, perhaps, as the podcast might only marginally help insiders to increase their impact.

Definitely open to a change in title.

I've sent you a message.

Reply
7
Kirsten
Yes, I like the idea of not using the words "effective altruism" in the title at all
See in context
by Stan Pinsent
2 min read 10

21

Career choiceCommunityPodcasts
Frontpage

Summary

EA has an elitist image which may be putting people off the movement. I propose a podcast, Backyard EA, exploring how people can run independent projects that make a significant difference without earning-to-give or an EA career. The post ends with an appeal for feedback.

 

Motivation for the Podcast

  • Increased interest in EA careers is good for EA organizations, but it may have counterproductive side-effects
  • The EA movement’s focus on earning-to-give and EA careers has historically struggled to accommodate non-hyper-achievers
    • Those not earning-to-give or in an EA career feel left out or like they are “all talk”
    • EA podcasts typically feature guests at the top of the field: there is a gap for a show that celebrates the more “everyday” side of EA work
  • There is some great written advice on independent projects, but I can’t find video/audio content on the subject. This seems like a missed opportunity - some people report being overwhelmed by the amount of reading they feel they should be doing. 
  • Independent projects, even when unsuccessful, are an excellent way to build skills and experience, and therefore become more effective. Let’s celebrate that!
  • I have experience in running an interview podcast (~20 episodes) and feel that I have sufficient skills to make a good product

 

Proposal

This would be an interview podcast featuring one or more guests per episode. 

Possible episode types could be:

  • A tour through the lifecycle of an independent project, given by the person who ran it (Person X on her innovative university outreach idea // Person Y on how he used the effectuation model to build his malaria app project)
  • An EA expert giving their slant (The creator of the EA Forum on why contributing can be so powerful // A Longtermist on their favorite small EA projects that are helping the future, now! // An EA org founder on the early failures that made them a success // Someone from 80k hours on how to balance direct work with long-shot job applications )
  • Community edition: listeners share their latest project ideas

 

The podcast could grow into a larger community with:

  • online and in-person events
  • a website with write-ups of independent projects
  • a forum for seeking and giving feedback/assistance on projects

 

Potential Weaknesses

  • A low-quality show could give the EA movement a bad name
    • Untested, amateur guests are likely to be of inconsistent quality
  • The show could distract listeners from better EA media
  • Applying for EA jobs may come with a sufficiently high expected value that the podcast could be net-negative by distracting people from this
  • There may be better ways for me to maximize my priorities (increasing my immediate impact, personal growth & becoming more embedded in the EA community)

 

Any Feedback?

Give me your feedback on Backyard EA!

I am particularly interested in:

  • Feedback on the strongest/weakest arguments for making the show
  • Suggested changes to the show format
  • Ideas for research/thinking I can do to refine the project
  • Ideas for episodes & suggestions for guests
  • Advice on how to build an audience by tapping into EA networks

21

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments10


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Nathan Young20
4
1

Note that reality has an elitism problem - some people are much more able to affect the world than others. While this is sad, I think it's also true and worth acknowledging.

EA has an elitism problem on top of this, but I think it's a large chunk of it. 

Reply
Stan Pinsent7
1
0

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree, and I think we can trace the elitism in the movement to well-informed efforts to get the most from the human resources available.

While EA remains on the fringe we can keep thinking in terms of maximising marginal gains (ie only targeting an elite with the greatest potential for doing good). But as EA grows it is worth considering the consequences of maintaining such an approach :

  1. Focusing on EA jobs & earning-to-give will limit the size of the movement, as newcomers increasingly see no place for themselves in it
  2. With limited size comes limited scope for impact: eg you can't change things that require a democratic majority
  3. Even if 2) proves false, we probably don't want a future society run by a vaunted, narrow elite (at least based on past experience)
Reply
Kirsten13
1
0

I think this is a lovely idea, I'd be very much in favour of you trying it out so we could all start listening and see how it works in practice!

Reply
Ree3
2
0

As you point out in your post, this project would have the most impact if it encourages people who aren't likely to engage in earn-to-give or an effective career to pursue an independent project. As such, I'd suggest that it would be better not to tie the podcast too closely to the EA brand, or assume prior knowledge of EA. The title you're using at the moment would seem pretty confusing to anyone not already in the EA community.

I've been thinking quite a lot about something similar recently - not a podcast specifically, but a way to engage people outside the elitist circles that the EA movement tends to target in high impact projects. I'd love to chat to you directly if you're interested in pursuing this.

Reply
Kirsten7
4
0

Yes, I like the idea of not using the words "effective altruism" in the title at all

Reply
Stan Pinsent1
0
0

Thanks for your thoughts. You make a good point - EA can be pretty alienating. There's a trade-off: Within the EA community there is a ready-made audience, probably lots of potential guests, less of a need to explain foundational concepts. But less potential impact, perhaps, as the podcast might only marginally help insiders to increase their impact.

Definitely open to a change in title.

I've sent you a message.

Reply
IanDavidMoss1
1
0

I feel like this proposal conflates two ideas that are not necessarily that related:

  1. Lots of people who want to do good in the world aren't easily able to earn-to-give or do direct work at an EA organization.
  2. Starting altruistically-motivated independent projects is plausibly good for the world.

I agree with both of these premises, but focusing on their intersection feels pretty narrow and impact-limiting to me. As an example of an alterative way of looking at the first problem, you might consider  instead or in addition having people on who work in high(ish)-impact jobs where there are currently labor shortages.

Overall, I think it would be better if you picked which of the two premises you're most excited about  and then went all-in on making the best podcast you could focused on that one.

Reply
Stan Pinsent2
0
0

Thanks, Ian. You make an excellent point: I don't want to unnecessarily narrow my focus here.

Perhaps I should focus on 1) because it also allows a broader scope of episode ideas. "How can ordinary people maximise the good they do in the world?" allows lots of different responses. Independent projects could be one of them.

On the other hand 2) seems more neglected. There's probably lots out there about startups or founding charities, but I can't find anything on running altruistic projects (except a few one-off posts).

Reply
Amber Dawn1
0
0

This sounds like a great idea! I think it would have the benefit of empowering more people to do independent projects, because it will make the steps clearer, and humanize people who start them. It also reminds me a bit of this article: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DdDt5NXkfuxAnAvGJ/changing-the-world-through-slack-and-hobbies (which argues that free-time projects like hobbies or non-work interests can be very impactful).

Reply
Stan Pinsent1
0
0

Thanks, Amber. Great article.

Reply
More from Stan Pinsent
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Career choice
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
5
Introducing EA to United World Colleges? (UWC alum here, curious to explore the overlap)
Unwobblypanda
· · 1m read
1
1
View more