Excellent post! Â One could add consulting third-party sources for additional confirmation:
(1) Â What does 'charitynavigator.org' turn up? Â (Are the filings up to date? Â Is the score good - or, at least, improving?) (2) Â For slightly more well-established and/or larger organizations: what do 'candid.org' and/or 'give.org' turn up?
Although ESG may not be as "buzz-worthy" as it was a few years ago - and some folks will say one can never trust corporate America anyway, there could be some merit to the idea expressed (in the same vain as a given company being lobbied by a shareholder to consider use of cryptocurrency - or stablecoin - as an alternative to U.S. Dollar holdings for its treasury); perhaps there is some way to further refine the idea, such that it behooves a given foundation (and the staff who know its finances best) to at least study the matter?
(Regardless thereof, kudos for sharing a quick read & interesting read!)
Not "changes your character" but - rather - reveals character; it's called an "ask" because the call to sacrifice is both general and (per the individual's sacrifice) personal - and it serves many functions (as mentioned).
In any case, one of the other replies (from '@Ben Auer') mentioned that "Value drift is not about losing sight of whetheryour actions are effective, but losing the motivation to care about whether your actions are effective."; in other words, what is being called a "sacrifice portfolio" is - in truth - effort (i.e. not a portfolio of sacrifices but a set of willful conscious actions, often at abstaining from a mentality as much as a behavior). Â One can argue the merits, but there is nothing compulsory thereabouts - which is why people undertake such effort voluntarily, sometimes take a break, and often return after a break (gamification & a high score isn't the ultimate goal).
Any luck? Â (Happy to share first-hand perspective, if that's of any help... but "context is key" - so just wanting to roll with your post & its momentum, i.e. before filling that part in...)
PS: Â Per your other recent post (and a priori knowledge of animal advocacy roles being both highly sought after & scarce), the results you've managed to achieve thus far are "nothing to sneeze at"! (Seriously, half of your applications resulted in some expression of further interest - and half of those an actual interview; that's unbelievable!)
7. The communities differ in key personality traits and demographics. Alignment skews much more heavily male (9:1) and younger compared to EA (2:1 male:female).
Though the article does disclaim this point ever-so-slightly ...
"While this gender distribution is not unfamiliar in engineering spaces ..."
... it would be difficult to understate how profoundly a simple skew in gender can profoundly skew everything that results therefrom; one should keep the 'base-rate fallacy' concept in mind when drawing conclusions (as the sample may/may not reflect the EA community as a whole, e.g. in the case of the forums introducing an implicit bias in sample). Â Note the lack of comments pertaining to the findings regarding gender...!
Miriam-Webster says "authentic" is the 2023 'word of the year'; how apt! Â (Note how a theme running through just about each individual comment is what the given poster was made to feel, i.e. the way in which your spirit resonated with them. Â Human beings remember how others make us feel - and all the more so when that authenticity resonates in interactions which are personal and empathetic.)
In short: independent of the material (quantitative) success of GWWC, there is much to be thankful for with respect to such leadership (here's to hoping GWWC is as lucky in succession - Luke Freeman is one-of-a-kind!)...
This thread gets at some part of the crux of the matter - but doesn't illuminate it completely.
As a moral philosopher, Peter Singer would have a hard time being taken seriously were he not vegetarian/vegan: too many people live in this world without consuming animals - and, culturally, there is little to sustain the practice aside from norms (most of which are quite far from any economic defensibility, to say nothing of their non-secular roots). Â Indeed (per the original posting's conclusion), such a Peter Singer would have a hard time taking himself seriously - because he descends from a long line of moral philosophers (and, indeed, activists) who have all recognized the very same truth - and can see how it manifests in their world. Â One could suspect folks who align with EA feel much the same, i.e. that being true (perhaps just) to one's own self is the ticket.
Excellent post! Â One could add consulting third-party sources for additional confirmation:
(1) Â What does 'charitynavigator.org' turn up? Â (Are the filings up to date? Â Is the score good - or, at least, improving?)
(2) Â For slightly more well-established and/or larger organizations: what do 'candid.org' and/or 'give.org' turn up?
Cheers @SiobhanBall!
Although ESG may not be as "buzz-worthy" as it was a few years ago - and some folks will say one can never trust corporate America anyway, there could be some merit to the idea expressed (in the same vain as a given company being lobbied by a shareholder to consider use of cryptocurrency - or stablecoin - as an alternative to U.S. Dollar holdings for its treasury); perhaps there is some way to further refine the idea, such that it behooves a given foundation (and the staff who know its finances best) to at least study the matter?
(Regardless thereof, kudos for sharing a quick read & interesting read!)
Not "changes your character" but - rather - reveals character; it's called an "ask" because the call to sacrifice is both general and (per the individual's sacrifice) personal - and it serves many functions (as mentioned).
In any case, one of the other replies (from '@Ben Auer') mentioned that "Value drift is not about losing sight of whether your actions are effective, but losing the motivation to care about whether your actions are effective."; in other words, what is being called a "sacrifice portfolio" is - in truth - effort (i.e. not a portfolio of sacrifices but a set of willful conscious actions, often at abstaining from a mentality as much as a behavior). Â One can argue the merits, but there is nothing compulsory thereabouts - which is why people undertake such effort voluntarily, sometimes take a break, and often return after a break (gamification & a high score isn't the ultimate goal).
Go Bears!
Any luck? Â (Happy to share first-hand perspective, if that's of any help... but "context is key" - so just wanting to roll with your post & its momentum, i.e. before filling that part in...)
PS: Â Per your other recent post (and a priori knowledge of animal advocacy roles being both highly sought after & scarce), the results you've managed to achieve thus far are "nothing to sneeze at"! (Seriously, half of your applications resulted in some expression of further interest - and half of those an actual interview; that's unbelievable!)
Though the article does disclaim this point ever-so-slightly ...
... it would be difficult to understate how profoundly a simple skew in gender can profoundly skew everything that results therefrom; one should keep the 'base-rate fallacy' concept in mind when drawing conclusions (as the sample may/may not reflect the EA community as a whole, e.g. in the case of the forums introducing an implicit bias in sample). Â Note the lack of comments pertaining to the findings regarding gender...!
Miriam-Webster says "authentic" is the 2023 'word of the year'; how apt! Â (Note how a theme running through just about each individual comment is what the given poster was made to feel, i.e. the way in which your spirit resonated with them. Â Human beings remember how others make us feel - and all the more so when that authenticity resonates in interactions which are personal and empathetic.)
In short: independent of the material (quantitative) success of GWWC, there is much to be thankful for with respect to such leadership (here's to hoping GWWC is as lucky in succession - Luke Freeman is one-of-a-kind!)...
Â
Â
Â
This thread gets at some part of the crux of the matter - but doesn't illuminate it completely.
As a moral philosopher, Peter Singer would have a hard time being taken seriously were he not vegetarian/vegan: too many people live in this world without consuming animals - and, culturally, there is little to sustain the practice aside from norms (most of which are quite far from any economic defensibility, to say nothing of their non-secular roots). Â Indeed (per the original posting's conclusion), such a Peter Singer would have a hard time taking himself seriously - because he descends from a long line of moral philosophers (and, indeed, activists) who have all recognized the very same truth - and can see how it manifests in their world. Â One could suspect folks who align with EA feel much the same, i.e. that being true (perhaps just) to one's own self is the ticket.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/virtual-programs/career-planning-program
Will the program be offered again @Cian M?Â