Hide table of contents

Hi all, I wanted to share some interviews I recently recorded which might be of interest to an EA crowd. A few months ago, I started a podcast with a friend at uni interviewing (mostly) academics in the social sciences and philosophy. Since we're both involved with EA, about half of the episodes ended up addressing topics either relevant to or directly concerning effective altruism. For each episode, we also write an accompanying article for the website. These articles are fairly in-depth, and represent 10 hours of work each. I've summarised four relevant episodes + articles below.

Jaime Sevilla Molina on Forecasting, Cultural Persistence, and Quantum Computing

Jaime Sevilla Molina is a visiting researcher at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk, and this year begins his PhD at the University of Aberdeen studying Bayesian reasoning. Previously, he was a Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute. First, we discuss how the social sciences infer causation from observed correlations, particularly in historical economic data. We apply this to a case study: Nathan Nunn's et al.'s work investigating 'cultural persistence'. This is in the context of research Jaime conducted for Will MacAskill's new book about longtermism. Next, we discuss forecasting: what it is, why it matters, and why it isn't more ubiquitous. Jaime finally walks us through an example of forecasting emerging technologies in quantum computing. The write-up elaborates on our conversation, including links and references.

George Rosenfeld on Effective Giving and Building a Charitable Movement

George Rosenfeld is a student at the University of Cambridge, and the founder of May Week Alternative, an initiative encouraging students to celebrate the post-exam period by donating a significant amount of money to the Against Malaria Foundation.

We discuss what George has learned about growing and sustaining a student-based charity; the psychology of what motivate people to join such a movement and donate their own money; and the myths and misperceptions surrounding what it means to have a positive impact. This might be relevant if you are considering starting a charitable or social movement — a good amount of actionable insights here!

Sanjay Joshi on Charity Evaluation and Nonprofit Entrepreneurship

Sanjay Joshi is the co-founder and CEO of SoGive, a non-profit whose database evaluates the impact and cost-effectiveness of UK charities. We begin by discussing why cost-effectiveness is often neglected in the charity space, and how the incentives for companies and nonprofits differ in this respect. Next, Sanjay argues why some commonly used measures, like admin costs and CEO pay, are misleading criteria to judge charities by. He explains a "two-question framework" for charity evaluation. Lastly, Sanjay advises people looking to get involved in charity or nonprofit entrepreneurship, reflecting on some of the obstacles he had to overcome.

Eve McCormick on Effective Altruism

Eve McCormick is the co-director of Effective Altruism Cambridge and a grant recipient from the Centre for Effective Altruism. We begin by discussing some of the philosophical arguments that originally motivated the effective altruism movement — before learning about its (fairly new) history. Next, Eve briefly surveys some of the central concepts of EA: how are charities evaluated, what is ‘counterfactual reasoning’, and what is the ‘ITN’ framework? Eve also briefly introduces some major cause areas. We finally discuss orienting a career around doing good. In the article, I tried to squeeze most of the key arguments, terms, and objections into < 10,000 words.

Other Episodes

A few of our episodes are indirectly EA-relevant:

I hope at least some of these prove to be interesting or otherwise worth reading for at least some of you! Constructive criticism is extremely welcome.

This is my first post on this forum, so I would also appreciate feedback on whether this kind of post is valued here. Apologies if instead it comes off as self-promotion — not my intention at all.

Do also feel free to contact us with ideas for future EA interviewees (including yourself).

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for doing and sharing this! I've downloaded the seven episodes mentioned, and look forward to listening to them!

I've also now commented a link to this post and the podcast page on A list of EA-related podcasts, so that it can be found again later from that sort-of "central directory" post.

Do also feel free to contact us with ideas for future EA interviewees (including yourself).

You may be interested in talking to this person planning to make a podcast on "Everyday EAs" (he also made a video on the idea, but it's "unlisted" on YouTube so I'll refrain from sharing it), or some of the people who commented there to express interest in being interviewed. I'd also be happy to be interviewed - I'll send you a message :)

This is my first post on this forum, so I would also appreciate feedback on whether this kind of post is valued here. Apologies if instead it comes off as self-promotion — not my intention at all.

I definitely value this post, and there's nothing wrong with self-promotion anyway! You've created some resources relevant to EA, and are letting us know about them. If you just made this podcast but never posted about it here, I probably wouldn't have ever gotten to hear about this.

We don't want EAs self-promoting in ways that are deceptive or use cheap tricks (like clickbait-y titles), but if EAs didn't self-promote at all, it'd be much harder to find out about the cool stuff they're doing!

And if it turned out that no one cared about this post, they could just not read it or not upvote it, and it would quickly drop off the frontpage and not take up people's time anymore. So I personally think people currently self-select out of posting more than they should; I think people should probably more often just go ahead and post, and give readers the choice of whether to pay attention or not. (See also Why you (yes, you) should post on the EA Forum.)

Two small bits of feedback on this post:

  • Maybe explicitly state the podcast name right near the start of the post?
  • Maybe tell people how you'd like to be contacted (e.g., a particular email address vs EA Forum message)?

Thanks very much for the kind feedback!

Have subscribed and downloaded the episodes you mentioned. Looking forward to hearing them 😀

[comment deleted]6
0
0
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 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
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would