If I talk about top GiveWell charities, should I focus on the cost of the intervention or the cost of averting a death? For example, if I'm talking to a non-EA about Malaria Consortium, should I talk about how it only takes $5 to provide medication to children vs. $2300 to avert a child's death?
It would make sense to talk about both, but which one would resonate with them more - especially during your first conversation?
When I first stumbled upon EA, I think the cost of the intervention got me "hooked" - then as I discovered GiveWell and read more about EA, I learned about the cost of averting a death.
Those are really good points! The hardest thing about this is trying to simplify it without losing them in the details/statistics/numbers - but also not oversimplifying it that people don't believe you or are skeptical.
What's interesting is if the $2300 to save a life would resonate with the average person. I know when I first read about this, I didn't think much of it. But then when I saw it in comparison to the $50k guide dog for blind person in the US, that really drove home the point for me.