I'm a Yale grad student studying development, statistical analysis, and US foreign policy. Before coming to Yale I served four years as a US Army officer. Before that I studied political science and economics at Johns Hopkins. I love travel, sports, and writing, especially about the moral implications of policy issues.

I was first drawn to EA to maximize the impact of my charitable giving, but now hope to work in the field professionally. My favorite charity is Give Directly, and I value altruism that respects the preferences of its intended beneficiaries. I also hope to make US foreign policy more peaceful one day, and to leave space for those in the developing world to chart their own course out of poverty.


An inner debate on risk aversion and systemic change

That's all good, intuitive advice. I'd considered something like moral luck before but hadn't heard the official term, so thanks for the link.

I imagine it could also help, psychologically, to donate somewhere safe if your work is particularly risky. That way you build a safety net. In the best case, your work saves the world; in the worst case, you're earning to give and saving lives anyway, which is nothing to sneeze at.

My human capital may best position me to focus my work on one cause to the exclusion of others. But my money is equally deliverable to any of them. So it shouldn't be inefficient to hedge bets in this way if the causes are equally good.

An inner debate on risk aversion and systemic change

Thanks for the encouragement!  The framing's for my own benefit, too. I've found it helps me navigate big decisions to write out the best case I can think of for both sides, and then reread sometime later to see which best convinces me.