Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
HoratioVonBecker1
0
0

Thanks for the prompt! The answer is that everyone here is interested in Doing Good, and so instead of having a meta-level discussion about Doing Good, I'm trying to have an object-level discussion about specific things to optimize.

Reply
See in context
by HoratioVonBecker
2 min read 2

-7

Frontpage

Epistemic Status: High confidence theoretical.

Firstly, I'd find a suicide prevention hotline, and I'd make sure literally everyone who worked in my house-of-healing could handle working for that hotline, by having them do it for a month. I would offer the orientation materials free in the waiting room, right next to the comic books.

Secondly, I'd find a law firm focused on debt collection, and I'd hire them full-time as insurance billing specialists. No one likes bureaucratic excrement, especially the sort that kills diabetics.

Thirdly, I would offer free legal consultation, in the same office. Wills are an obvious service, and so is negotiating for disability accommodations. There are enough people with law degrees who'd take a modest salary in exchange for job security and the knowledge that they're doing some good in the world; this isn't difficult.

Fourthly, I would make darn sure the decor was aesthetically pleasing, and also educational. I'd go looking around on Etsy, maybe commission some oil painters, but the job is to frame the human body as something fantastic, rather than just gross or alien. Embroidered anatomical models, flying cyborg brains with rainbow lasers, music albums bought on Bandcamp and streamed through the speakers.

Fifth, there would be a sizeable book budget for the waiting room. Book curation would be an important job. My default assumption is that children's books and newspaper comic collections would be ideal, on account of being the sort of thing you can enjoy even if you have to put it down in a hurry. At least two reception desk workers would have to read a book and sign off on it before it gets added to the shelf.

Sixth, there would be a sizeable snack budget. I might just hire a chef. No one should work hungry, no one should work tired. This isn't endurance training, which you can and perhaps should do on your own time.

Seventh, all toys for children would be curated based on ease of washing, and the children would get a sink and/or washing machine to wash them in. Kids love playing with water, and if water is expensive, simply tell them so. Toys must be washed daily.

 

Critique would be welcome, as would signal-boosting. I want reasonably optimal Generic Hospital and/or Doctor's Office institutional blueprints to reach the eyes of the people who desire to run, build, or improve such institutions ASAP.

-7

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
calebp10
0
0

I think it would be great if people who downvoted this post could explain why.

I didn't vote but I suspect this was downvoted as it is not obvious how this relates to effective altruism. It might be better as part of your short-form or if you could explain the link at the start of the post.

Reply
HoratioVonBecker1
0
0

Thanks for the prompt! The answer is that everyone here is interested in Doing Good, and so instead of having a meta-level discussion about Doing Good, I'm trying to have an object-level discussion about specific things to optimize.

Reply
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
Relevant opportunities
42
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
0
0
7
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
3
3
46
Open Phil's Farm Animal Welfare team is hiring a Program Assistant!
LewisBollard
· · 2m read
0
0
View more