helmetedhornbill
Posts 4
Comments22
A lot of this posts reads as an intro to HLI, what they do, why wellbeing matters. And this is important and I also agree, neglected.
At the same time, you write that this post is about why HLI should receive a grant for a specific proposal of theirs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zANITg1HuKAn5uEe7nzepTZXxyMDy44vowsdVcMFiHo/edit
And it seems to me you do not really address the value or specifics of this proposal? Your post reads to me more as 'we should fund HLI's research' but the proposal asks for funding for a grants specialist and seed money. And it's strange to me that you mostly recommend funding them based on prior work (which again, I also see as work of quality and importance) rather than also evaluating the proposal at hand.
For instance, HLI are requesting $100,000 as a seed fund to e.g. 'make some early-stage grants'. This would effectively be a regrant of a regrant. People in the comments have expressed skepticism of this (e.g. Nuño's comment: "FTX which chooses regrantors which give money to Clearthinking which gives money to HLI which gives money to their projects. It's possible I'm adding or forgetting a level, but it seems like too many levels of recursion, regardless of whether the grant is good or bad.") There's a lot of dilution and I wonder what you think of this?
Other people on Manifold (John and Rina) have pointed out how non-specific this proposal is, how lacking of a plan it appears in the current way it's written, that there might be harm risks that aren't considered at all. I understand there might have been word limits but other proposals are much more concrete.
It would be great if Clearer Thinking publish more information on how they evaluated all of these final proposals.
Would you be able to say a little more about why part of your criteria seems to be degree of probability shift ("We will award larger prizes for larger changes to these probabilities, as follows..."). It seems to me that you might get a case where you could get analyses that offer larger changes but are less robust than some analyses that suggest smaller changes. I didn't understand how much of your formal evaluation will look at plausibility, argumentation, soundness?
(asking as a curiosity not as a critique)
This paper came out today and may be relevant as well, The neural bases for timing of durations at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-022-00623-3
My first thought was also David Eagleman (How to Slow Down Time) but really most of his lectures and ted/google talks are fascinating, even those outside time perception.
Other than the first Guardian article you reference, I would also recommend this piece and the book it is about: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/may/01/chums-how-a-tiny-caste-of-oxford-tories-took-over-the-uk-by-simon-kuper-review
It made the potential political impact of the Oxford Union much more salient and clearer to me. Talks about a range of things like the history of the Union, political connections, debating styles, the inception of Brexit.
Maybe it should also be mentioned both Student Unions are also likely high impact opportunities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Students%27_Union#Former_Officers
Thank you for sharing and hopefully encouraging others to considering offsetting.
I have taken a subscription with Carbon Neutral Britain which is at just under £7/$9 per month which works great for me because it minimizes the cognitive cost but makes it a more regular part of my life: https://carbonneutralbritain.org/pages/become-carbon-neutral
That said the Vox list is great and I'll be looking into their recommendations as well.