2893Monson, MA, USAJoined May 2017



I am a Senior Economist at Rethink Priorities (https://www.rethinkpriorities.org/our-team), previously an Economics lecturer/professor for 15 years

I'm working to impact EA fundraising and marketing; see https://bit.ly/eamtt

And projects bridging EA, academia, and open science (esp. the 'Unjournal') ... see bit.ly/eaprojects

My previous and ongoing research focuses on determinants and motivators of charitable giving (propensity, amounts, and 'to which cause?'), and drivers of/barriers to effective giving, as well as the impact of pro-social behavior and social preferences on market contexts.

Podcasts: "Found in the Struce" https://anchor.fm/david-reinstein

and the EA Forum podcast: https://anchor.fm/ea-forum-podcast (co-founder, regular reader)

Twitter: @givingtools


Topic Contributions

Thanks and good question.

Are you intending on doing evaluation of 'canonical non-peer reviewed EA work?

Short answer, probably down the road a little bit, after our pilot phase ends.

We're currently mainly focused on getting academic and academic-linked researchers involved. Because of this, we are leaning towards targeting conventionally-prestigious and rigorous academic and policy work that also has the potential to be highly impactful.

In a sense, the Denkenberger paper is an exception to this, in that it is somewhat niche work that is particularly of interest to EAs and longtermists.

Most of the rest of our 'current batch' of priority papers to evaluate are NBER working papers or something of this nature. That aligns with the "to make rigorous work more impactful" part of our mission.

But going forward we would indeed like to do more of exactly what you are suggesting. To bring academic (and non-EA policy) expertise to EA-driven work; this is the ~"to make impactful work more rigorous" part of our mission. This might be done as part of a separate stream of work; we are still working out the formula.

Could you add some tags to this? This seems like something that should be integrated into to our wiki/information infrastructure/knowledge base.

I see what you mean. I guess my point is “neartermist” sounds like it’s a coherent ideology in opposition to longtermism. “Not longtermist” is not a banner to march behind or a team, it’s just a factual description (in lower case).

Let’s promote the wiki and make it more visible!

Yes I’ve tried that. It’s very helpful. it should be easy to pipe into a translation bot too. Dual mode (both languages appear) would be ideal.

I think these tips are generally good. But one more we might experiment with, especially when online/remote:

Use voice-to-text speech recognition, and possibly also even translation.

My experience/impression is that this takes a bit of setup (good microphones, clear speaking voice, quiet setting etc), but actually works surprisingly well. I suspect we might be coming to the point soon where this actually leads to better and faster conversation between people with different native languages.

It’s hard to process new and complex ideas while also dealing with a linguistic burden (having to translate a foreign language, or speak your own language extra precisely, and adapt to unfamiliar pronunciations.)

Using this machine tech may be somewhat awkward and seem less natural. But the benefit lower cognitive load, and being able to focus onto issues may outweigh this.

Thanks for this!

I checked this against the Airtable for groups that EA Market testing is working with/talking to. The only potential omissions here were

  • Charity Navigator (not EA but there's ~an EA contingent)
  • Charity Elections, under the GWWC umbrella (not an effective giving org per se but maybe part of the ecosystem)
Load More