All of ChrisCundy's Comments + Replies

Promoting Effective Giving at Conferences via Speed Giving Games

For anyone interested in learning more, I'm giving a whole workshop about how to do really well at this sort of tabling / large audience set-up at EA Global, at 9am in the Mandrone; I'll be writing up the whole thing later.

Excellent, based on the surprising number of upvotes on my comment above, lots of folks would find the university-oriented write-up useful
Promoting Effective Giving at Conferences via Speed Giving Games

Thanks for writing this up Gleb! I'm doing an EA Global workshop on pitching EA (though with a bit more focus on university groups), so I'd be interested to know if you have any idea how many people passed by your stall and didn't engage? Was it all of the attendees, or was it possible for attendees to bypass the stall?

Chris, let me know if you have any questions about how university groups have utilized GG for outreach. Happy to share lessons learned and best practices.
Excellent to hear about the EA Global workshop, and nice to hear about the focus on university groups - probably like the ones Boris wrote about above, I assume? To answer your questions, the UU conference arrangement had a separate exhibit hall, and within the exhibit hall there were a number of areas. Plenty of people who went to the conference did not go to the exhibit hall, and of those who went, many did not go to the area where our table was (it was in an area for those interested in curriculum materials and other intellectual content). At the SSA, the tables had a more central location, so most of those who went to the conference passed by the table locations at some point, but they did not have to go into the tabling area itself - they were visible but you had to go out of your way to engage with the tables. Not sure about the numbers of people who passed by but didn't engage, didn't keep track of that. However, my general sense is that slightly more people from the SSA engaged than from UU.
It may also be a good idea to a) change "meta" to "movement building" because the latter term is clearer and b) change "prioritization" to "prioritization (causes, careers, and charities)" to clarify that it is more than just cause prioritization.
The 2015 Survey of Effective Altruists: Results and Analysis

(1) We didn't ask people how much money they donated to individual charities, that's right. The data is available in the github repository for the project - search for 'github' in the report

(2) I agree that conducting the survey at the start of the calendar year would be better. Whether we would do that depends to some extent on whether we'd want to wait six months until we start the next survey. We are tightening up the feedback loop - we're improving the code used to analyse it every time. This year the survey was handed around quite a few people - we hope next year to have a dedicated person who can focus entirely full-time on it.

If you waited until Jan 2017, would you ask about both 2015 and 2016 donations?
Thanks! On point (1), I downloaded the raw data shortly after posting the comment and realized that the existence of people who have donated to multiple charities makes the analysis difficult. Apologies for not doing that before posting the comment.
The 2015 Survey of Effective Altruists: Results and Analysis

That is a very good point, and ties in to vipulnaik's point below about starting the survey collection time just after the start of a year so that donation information can be recorded for the immediately preceding year.

I've quickly run the numbers and the median donation in 2014 for the 467 people who got involved in 2013 or earlier was $1,500, so significantly higher than that for EAs overall. This is not including people who didn't say what year they got involved, so probably cuts a few people out who did get involved before 2014 but can't remember. Also... (read more)

Thanks for looking this up quickly, and good point about the selection effect due to attrition. I do think that it would be informative to see the numbers when also limited to nonstudents (or to people above a certain income, or to people above a certain age). I wouldn't expect to see much donated from young low- (or no-) income students.
Very interesting. I think there's a number of reasons why the $1,500 figure might be biased downwards or updwards as an estimate for median EA donations/charitable savings after exposure to the movement. It might be too low if many people are just saving to give rather than consuming (attempting to measure this may be useful in the future). It might be biased upwards if those who joined the movement earlier are predisposed to give more than the average EA or those who take the survey are more likely to donate than the average EA. Regardless, I think the evidence suggests there are a lot of untapped donations among current EAs. I think trying to increase current EA donations should be a priority.
Accomplishments Open Thread - July 2016

A week ago I moved to Vancouver for the summer, interning at .impact with Tom Ash and the team.

It's been a fun week, and I've started work on a few ongoing projects, such as analysing the results of this year's EA survey, and getting in contact with local EA groups that wanted some support putting on their first event. These projects are all ongoing, and hopefully we should see some results, such as insightful statistics about the EA community, soon!

0Catherine Low6y
Thanks Chris, I just read through the survey. Very interesting stats and inferences. It is certainly making me think about striking a balance between making sure people don't have the "I don't feel EA enough" feeling, but also developing a culture where people are normalising high impact giving.
Congrats on your internship, and will be excited to see the results of the EA survey!