I currently work on community epistemic health at CEA, before that I worked on community building.
I previously founded Good Policies, a CE-incubated charity identifying and then advocating in the most cost-effective policy windows in global health (currently focussed on tobacco taxation). We cut our work short due to covid-19 as we felt that given the changes in the global health policy landscape our work no longer met the bar that we wanted for expected cost-effectiveness.
Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
Thanks for directing fellows towards the service!
We think that there is quite a lot of information to value to running this programme so the breakeven point is likely quite low in terms of justifying costs. That said I do hope that we get a lot of people using the service!
I think it is better to think of Karma as tracking the number of people that read and liked a post, rather than the value of a post relative to other posts.
i.e. people are generally thinking how much do I like the post rather than given the current karma, what change should I make to push it to the correct value.
What textbooks would you recommend for these topics? (Right now my list is only “Linear Algebra Done Right”)
I flipping love 3b1b. The linear algebra and calculus series are particularly great.
I think that JPAL has done some work on this but I can't find the papers after a quick google search.
I am a bit confused why this is actually useful? Is it mostly for optimising for preferences, if so I can see why this would be useful but if you don't strongly prioritise preferences then I don't see why this would help you create better metrics?
I think my question is 'for people who don't prioritise preferences (e.g. hedonistic utilitarians), do you still think that moral weight surveying is useful? '? E.g. maybe an intervention will be more widely adopted by a community if appeals to their preferences, so efficacy is increased from a non-preference perspective.
By topping out I just meant that Bryan's impression of students I saturated at an upper bounded for the best libertarian and EA students they met. This could be either be because the students that they met actually did have a very high and similar performance, or because their model/test for assessing how good people are had the best students scoring very highly (so their test was not well calibrated to show differences in top students).
I think this was probably a bit of an off hand remark, and Stefan is right in it being very weak evidence of the performance of top libertarian/EA students.
I personally agree with all of your comment and agree that the underlying distribution seems unlikely to be normal.
Maybe they think that both movements are large enough such that they both 'top out' I.e. both movements have some people in the top 0.1% of students or the top 10 EA students are about as good as the top 10 libertarian students.
I'd still expect a larger movement to have more of the top 0.1% people, I'm not exactly sure what Bryan was describing here but if he expects that students are roughly normally distributed with regards to goodness it seems like a reasonably hypothesis to me.
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.
I'm not massively familiar with neoliberalism or your project but I'm struggling to understand where the specific recommendations/positions come from. To what degree are they derived from a set of clear principles or a philosophy as opposed to being the concensus of leaders in the inside of the movement or some other method?
I feel like EAs are generally strongly 'bought in' on there being a moral obligation to help other people if you can do so easily and it's important to use evidence and reason when working out how to do good but beyond that I see most EA cause areas more like things that some EAs are interested in, I don't think most EAs are strongly compelled by all mainstream cause areas. Would you say that neoliberals are generally strongly bought in at the policy level (e.g. we believe in a carbon tax) or a more fundamental level and do you think that you need to support all of those policies outlined in the first what we believe link to be a neoliberal?
I am hopeful that it will cultivate curiosity/investigating confusion, and help address the deferral problem.
I think that it will be harder to know whether we achieve 'cultivating curiosity' than 'helping people navigate EAs knowledge space' but I am probably more excited about making progress on the former.