Is there an argument here for trying to spread more of a Growth Mindset in EA? I don't want to diminish the hurt of rejection that people feel by implying that they just need to reframe it and everything will be fine - but the approach of seeing challenges/failures as learning experiences can be genuinely transformative for people.In general, I think developing a growth mindset is incredibly valuable, and I wonder if this is something Training for Good could look at.
This exactly chimes with my experience. I've been hiring for 10 years now, and the range in application volume has been 10-200 for a position. In particular, I've been using an opt-in for feedback for years and my experience has also been that this is requested by a very low volume of people (I'd actually guess at 5% for early rejections, rising to 75% if they did an interview, at which point most people seem to want feedback).For what it's worth, I think this is a moral issue as well - we have a duty to the community to try to give useful feedback when we can; and to treat people with kindness. I try to take it in good faith when people say "I'm too busy to give feedback" but I feel that this is often not literally true; and in the rare cases where it is (maybe someone running one of the big 'legacy' EA organisations and getting hundreds of applicants per position), the solutions in other comments are viable.
What is the legal and practical feasibility of a global DAF that could facilitate tax deductible donations from any wealthy country to any charity registered in a different country (but not registered in the home country of the donor)? Practical considerations would need to include FX risk.
Or, to put it another way, how might we build a platform to let people in India or China donate to Malaria Consortium?
There is now a Slack channel for continued discussions about EA and FIRE in the Global EA Discussion Slack. If you'd like to be added, please DM me your email address
This isn't my area of expertise, but a quick review suggests that they are basing the numbers on a single study, which wasn't an RCT - it was a 'before and after' with an attempt at a control group.
That doesn't mean it isn't worth looking into, for sure, but I could equally believe that the extra rigour of an RCT could move the cost per lives saved from ~$1200 to a number several times higher than that.
It still merits furthers investigation though.
I don't know if this counts as a conflict of interest, but my wife is an M&E consultant. She ordinarily evaluates international aid projects but might be able to help with this. Let me know if you'd like an introduction
Thanks for the mention :-)
Not sure how helpful this is, but grad schools typically move more money (certainly per pledger/per student/per class etc. and often in naive terms). We have no idea yet of the long term changes in attitudes/actions and how those relate to school-type.
Also FWIW someone just started raising OFTW pledges at HLS and is absolutely crushing it - about $20k/annum of pledges in about a fortnight!
Interesting project mate. One use case - I am always interested to know what the total 'value' of the community's donation is. Indeed, I ended up doing a back-of-an-envelope version of this for a presentation in December, using publicly available donations data. The issue is that everyone reports data over different time periods/in different formats, and there's also a very real risk of double-counting quite a few donations, and so it's tricky to do. I'd be interested to keep track of a) total donations influenced by EA; and b) trends in giving over time.
Thanks Jan - looking forward to hearing from you!
Will send you an email :-) you might also be interested in my post here, although it's only tangentially-related