Hi folks!

I'm a composer who writes music and songs for Cartoon Network. I also make short films! Last year I wrote a post asking if my filmmaking/songwriting skills could be put to use somehow to help promote EA ideas or charities. I ended up collaborating with The Life You Can Save to create this puppet and animation based mini-musical! It aims to playfully discuss some ideas around effective giving in the global health and development arena, and to promote The Life You Can Save.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y3TTVK8wGQ

I wanted the video to express my own joy at having found a way to make a large positive impact in the world, and to lightheartedly address some concerns people might have around global charities. For transparency's sake: I self-funded the production costs of the video.

I'd love to know what you think! If you like it please consider sharing it to help it get seen by more people. I hope it might pique some curiosity about TLYCS and gain more donations for their recommended charities.

As I understand it the team at TLYCS plan to create a pack to use this video as a kicking off point for educating children about effective giving, so I'm interested to learn if it's useful in that area.

I also wrote a supporter story on their website with a bit more personal background, if you're interested.

If you have any questions, comments or critical feedback fire away! I'd like to learn from this foray and hopefully lend my creative skills to future projects (not necessarily puppet-based!) in the EA world if it seems like a worthwhile thing to do.

97

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments20


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I don't have anything to say except that I loved this, and I'm really happy somebody is starting to present a warmer and fuzzier side of EA.

Thanks for the positive feedback Matt! I have to say, as someone outside the world of academia/ai/economics/nonprofits etc I sometimes find the face of EA a little dry and quite 'heady,' so I wanted to express the joyful feeling I had when I found out there was a way I could be more certain of my actions having a positive impact on the world! Every year when I donate I feel a great sense of satisfaction and purpose to know that there are highly effective ways to improve the lives of others, and that I can contribute to that. I think that's a message worth sharing!

Thanks for your work. Good clear explanation. I think it's great that you and TLYCS are working together. I'll be really curious as to how this does. The puppet and animation quality is really high.

I think it's great for children though it should be made clear that's the target audience. I would worry adults in the altruism sector would see it and think TLYCS were being patronising towards them. Sometimes EA has this reputation anyway.

I think there is room for a darker/ more self depricating music piece for adults. Your other video (about economics) hit that tone well for me.

Looking forward to more stuff like this if you are gonna keep working on it. Maybe TLYCS tiktok? :P

Cheers for the kind words Nathan, and for all the feedback!

In actual fact I didn't make the video with children in mind originally, more as just a playful and colourful celebration of the work of TLYCS. I totally see how it comes across as aiming at kids (it's cartoons and puppets, fergoodnesssake), and I think based on feedback TLYCS received they've decided to use it this way. I really hope it isn't construed as being patronising, though I can see how it might!

I'm totally up for exploring other tones and ways to discuss ideas around EA, I think there are many creative ways to do this. I hope to do more projects in the future to help promote EA ideas and organisations (I'm busy with other work and new baby right now) and I'm excited about the different ways to do that.

I produce some rap and would enjoy collaborating if you'd ever like to.

Regardless, thanks so much for your work!

This is really cool. It's really great to see you put your talents toward promoting EA. I think you did an excellent job!

Thank you kindly Peter! I'm hoping I might be able to do more EA related video making in the future.

This was fun to watch, and I'm sure to produce. For the most part I really liked it!

There was one part that struck me as off-base, around 1:22, where it says "Where otherwise they'd likely die!". There were a few reasons I found these few seconds problematic:

1. I felt that it implied TLYCS charities help save the lives of people who will otherwise die... e.g. it made me picture life-saving surgeries for people in critical care units. While there are many TLYCS charities that I'm unfamiliar with, no typically recommended EA global development organizations that I'm aware of prevent likely death. Rather, those that do save lives, help prevent disease, and as far as I know in no case the percent likelihood of death of an individual anywhere near 50% or greater without the intervention.

2. It felt like it was making light of the issue at that point as well. I think it would have been easy to continue the playful tone with a sad face and a bit of quietness at that time, with a slow ramp up of the volume later. Instead, it just breezed past it in a way that felt upbeat to me. FWIW, I also think that what felt to me a bit like making light of death made the video less credible to me.

Other, more minor, feedback:

1. I think it would likely have been better if shorter, or otherwise somehow more dynamic to justify the length. While there were a lot of great parts, I found it a bit repetitive and lost interest a bit.

2. I imagine the majority of the audience is American, and therefore I imagine the video would be better received, on average, if the main actor had an American accent rather than one of another country. An alternative could be to have the lyrics incorporated into the video to help with listening comprehension.

3. At 1:54, I was surprised by some of the icons. I'm not sure if there's a drinking water charity TLYCS suggests or not, but that's a less typical intervention for EAs to endorse. I also thought the mosquito would look better with a red circle and line over it or something.

I'm curious if there's a deployment strategy? I see the number of views is relatively low (currently 1.5k).

I was pretty surprised to discover that this wasn't to the tune of "I Want To Break Free".

This is brilliant.

Thanks alex! A lot of love went into it from all involved :)

I very much enjoyed the video. But I don't think it would have been able to change my mind in some alternative reality where I didn't already know about EA.

Thanks for the feedback Linda! That's really useful to know, can you identify any way it might have been more successful in doing that for you? I imagine it's hard to know because you DO already know about EA, but any guesses would be appreciated!

I wonder if it's even possible to change someone's mind in a three minute youtube vid? I was hoping more to spark interest for people to investigate further and make their own mind up.

One of my doubts about this vid is that it maybe tries to talk about too many different arguments, where it might have been more impactful if it focussed on just one message.

The format of the video is basically: "Do you worry about these things, then we have the solution." Integrated with some back and forth, that I really like.

"Do you worry about these things, then we have the solution." is a standard panther in commercials, for a good reason. I think this is a good panther also for selling idea ideas like EA. But it also means that you can just say you understand my concerns and that you have solutions, you have to give me some evidence, or else is is just another empty commercial.

The person singing about their doubts felt relatable, in that they brought up real concerns about charity that I could imagine having before EA. I don't remember exactly but these seemed like standard and very reasonable concerns. And got the impression that you (the video maker) really understand "my" (the viewers) worries about giving to charity.

But when you where singing about the solutions you fall a bit short. I don't think this video would win the trust of an alternative Linda, that your suggestions for charity is actually better. I think it would help to put in some argument why treatable decides, and how to lift the barriers you mention.

Every charity says they are special, so just it don't count for much. But if you give me some arguments that I can understand for why your way is better, then that is evidence that you're onto something, and I might go and check it out some more.

******

All that said, I re-wathced the video, and I like it even more now. The energy and the mood shifts are amazing.

On re-watching I also feel that a viewer should be able to easily figure out the connection between focusing on deceases and avoiding building dependency. But I remember that first time I watched is it felt like there where a major step missing link there. I think it is now when I know what they will say, this gives me some more time to reflect and make those connections myself.

But people seeing this on the internet might only watch once, so...

Watching it yet again, I think it would feel more right if the guy where not so easily convinced, but instead it ended with him, being "hm, that sounds promising, I'm going to learn some more".

Both the puppet really felt like real people with actual personalty to me, up until t=1:57. But then the guy just complexly changes his mind which broke my suspense of disbelief. I think that's the point when mostly started to sound like "yet another commercial".

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback Linda, and for taking the time to watch the video so many times! I appreciate it!

It's all good food for thought and I'm going to mull on it. I have to say I agree with your last point that when the purple character suddenly accepts TLYCS and changes his mind it feels too easy and unrealistic. This has been bugging me too, but I only noticed it when it was too late to change! Still, it's all good learning and hopefully the next project like this I work on I'll be able to use what I've learned to good effect :)

Thanks again for your time and consideration!

I'm not crying you're crying!

Really enjoyed this, thank you. I especially liked the undertone of 'uncertainty isn't a reason not to try, it's a reason to find out more'. Good life advice in general, I think.

I just saw this now and loved it, super excited for more content in the future!

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