3148Monson, 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

Project Idea: 'Cost to save a life' interactive calculator promotion

What about making and promoting a ‘how much does it cost to save a life’ quiz and calculator.

 This could be adjustable/customizable (in my country, around the world, of an infant/child/adult, counting ‘value added life years’ etc.) … and trying to make it go viral (or at least bacterial) as in the ‘how rich am I’ calculator? 

The case 

  1. People might really be interested in this… it’s super-compelling (a bit click-baity, maybe, but the payoff is not click bait)!
  2. May make some news headlines too (it’s an “easy story” for media people, asks a question people can engage with, etc. … ’how much does it cost to save a life? find out after the break!)
  3. if people do think it’s much cheaper than it is, as some studies suggest, it would probably be good to change this conception… to help us build a reality-based impact-based evidence-based community and society of donors
  4. similarly, it could get people thinking about ‘how to really measure impact’ --> consider EA-aligned evaluations more seriously

While GiveWell has a page with a lot of tech details, but it’s not compelling or interactive  in the way I suggest above, and I doubt  they market it heavily.

GWWC probably doesn't have the design/engineering time for this (not to mention refining this for accuracy and communication).  But if someone else (UX design, research support, IT) could do the legwork I think they might be very happy to host it. 

It could also mesh well with academic-linked research so I may have  some ‘Meta academic support ads’ funds that could work with this.

Tags/backlinks (~testing out this new feature) 
@GiveWell  @Giving What We Can
Projects I'd like to see 

EA Projects I'd Like to See 
 Idea: Curated database of quick-win tangible, attributable projects 

Here's what it looked like (I cut out the information about the fundraiser I donated to):

Is there potential for an LLM/AI tool that turns the content of the discord server chats into a structured knowledge base?

Are the matches just starting to be announced now? I just got messaged that one had been matched


Pinging this thread to see if any action or decisions have been taken. My latest impression seems to be that the Bay Area (while being a wonderful place) seems to be just as expensive/unaffordable as a year ago, while remaining the biggest EA center. My impression is that this is limiting the talent pool and ability to coordinate.

I gave comments on this directly to Wayne. I'd encourage others to comment (decently high VOI perhaps), and I'll share my comments later so as not to bias.

I suggest editing the original post to note the updated location?

Also, some issues with the new location, which is good but

  1. Some 'merging' of houses (when an individual like me put up 2 houses) seemed to have been done wrongly. E.g., info from my English house was merged into my American house, and the English house seems to have disappeared

  2. Obviously the map is a static image; I assume you plan to update with a link to a geocoded dynamic map thing?

  3. Maybe you should add/automate a 'country' field, as I did in my Airtable version

I suggest editing this post for the update?

I want to add a slightly pedantic note, but also slightly helpful to avoid future confusion:

'Purchasing power parity" is a condition on the exchange rate ... the exchange rate level that would set the purchasing power equal between two countries.

In this post, and in Toby Ord's footnote, I think we should just be referring to "purchasing power".

Load more