(Ironically, I suppose the title -- "We don't have evidence that the best charities are over 1000x more cost effective than the average" -- is also an overly confident claim, where a question might have been better, unless the original poster had carried out an exhaustive search for relevant evidence)

I agree with other comments that the 80k article is the place to go.

But I also want to specifically praise and thank the original poster for (1) noticing an important seeming empirical claim being bandied around (2) noticing that the evidence being used seemed insufficient (3) sharing that potentially important discovery.

(For what it's worth, before the 80k article, I also worried that people in the EA community were excessively confident in similar claims.)

Also, even if charities differ significantly on a specific, narrow metric, they may differ less substantially in terms of various indirect and knock on effects (which also matter). See https://reducing-suffering.org/why-charities-dont-differ-astronomically-in-cost-effectiveness/

I don't think our capacity has been as stretched as LTFF. We get fewer applications.

Id guess the median application wait time is around 4 weeks.

It feels somewhat uninformative to share a mean, because sometimes there are substantial delays due to:

• applicants themselves being unresponsive to our own emails or saying they need several weeks to send us some follow up info
• Logistical complexities on some specific applications.

I haven't looked these things up though; let me know if you're keen for a more precise answer.

As for applicant questions: likewise, I personally don't get many of these. I answer them when I do, even if sometimes more briefly than I'd like to be able to. I haven't asked Harri his experience though.

(I'm intrigued to see these things described as "the value proposition to funding applicants". I would have seen the value proposition more as like 'funding for EA infrastructure projects, even for small amounts', with these other elements more as secondary parts of the 'experience'. Of course, this still matters though.)

Sounds exciting!

It’s really about exploring what kinds of hurdles might come up in this 80/20 approach — for example, getting a clearer picture of where enough high-quality videos already exist and where important content is still missing. But also more generally: what else might turn out to be more complicated than expected? The other key question is: do people like and actually use the platform?

Makes sense to me. But this one...

And ideally, does it help move people from ambition to action — for example, by inspiring them to donate, explore new career paths, or volunteer their time to help solve the problems discussed?

...seems very hard to notice/track in a pilot. (I'd be very interested if you have ideas how to do this!)

Happy to keep you in the loop on which videos I find or plan to include — I’d really appreciate your thoughts or suggestions at that stage!

Sounds great, thank you! Feel free to DM me on the EA Forum or email jamie.a.harris94 [at] gmail.com

And also: if you’ve created any content yourself that might be a good fit, feel free to share!

I'm afraid it's a bit too bespoke to the exact narrative/experience of the course to be worth sharing more widely. (Usually 2-8 minute videos summarising key concepts or insights and explaining them in the context of a subject-specific course for 15-18 year olds, e.g. this one.)

Sounds very cool! I think video courses is a great idea, since I expect that a lot of people (myself included) at least sometimes find it a lot easier and more fun to watch videos than to read things.

Quite intrigued which videos you intend to use; when I've created EA-relevant online courses in the past, a dearth of high-quality, relevant videos has been a bottleneck. I ended up creating my own content/videos. (There are sometimes things like EA Global talks, but they often aren't sufficiently introductory and broad, e.g. they'll be about a specific intervention, org, or argument rather than about a cause area or topic.)

What uncertainties are you testing with the pilot? Is it mainly about demand/sign ups/views?

This was very cool. Extremely creative! And emotive. 168k views is impressive. Thanks for putting in the work into this in your spare time!

I'd be so curious to know if (m)any people donated to ACE as a result! (You could maybe ask ACE if they had recent donations citing your channel name or 'Youtube video's or some such as how they heard). Also wondering if you got (m)any new Patreon subscribers as a result

Social Movement Mobilization: Literature Review

Collective Identity and Community Building

Core concepts: Shared identity formation, in-group solidarity, boundary maintenance

Key findings:

• Strong collective identities significantly predict sustained participation
• Communities that balance inclusivity with distinctive identity markers show higher retention
• Regular face-to-face interaction strengthens commitment beyond digital-only engagement

Evidence strength: Strong. Multiple longitudinal studies across diverse movements consistently show correlation between identity strength and participation persistence.

Notable research:

• Polletta and Jasper's (2001) review found identity processes central to all stages of activism
• Snow and McAdam (2000) documented how "identity alignment" precedes sustained activism
• Blee's (2012) ethnographic studies showed how white supremacist groups use identity work to maintain commitment despite social stigma

Resource Mobilization

Core concepts: Organizational infrastructure, resource acquisition, professional vs. grassroots structures

Key findings:

• Professionalized organizations excel at policy advocacy but often struggle with deep engagement
• Hybrid structures combining professional leadership with grassroots participation demonstrate better long-term mobilization
• Material and non-material resources both matter, but emotional resources become increasingly important for sustained involvement

Evidence strength: Moderate to strong. Comparative organizational studies show clear patterns, though causal mechanisms remain debated.

Notable research:

• McCarthy and Zald's (1977) foundational work showed how resource availability shapes movement trajectories
• Staggenborg's (1988) comparative study found professionalized organizations survived longer but mobilized fewer committed activists
• Ganz's (2000) research on the United Farm Workers demonstrated how strategic capacity depends on leadership structures and insider/outsider combinations

Framing and Messaging

Core concepts: Diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing; frame resonance; frame alignment

Key findings:

• Single-issue framing simplifies messaging but limits identity commitment
• Holistic frames connecting multiple issues create stronger commitment but reach narrower audiences
• Progressive frame alignment over time builds deeper engagement than immediate ideological purity tests

Evidence strength: Moderate. Experimental and observational studies show consistent effects, though context-specific factors introduce variability.

Notable research:

• Benford and Snow's (2000) synthesis showed how framing shapes mobilization potential
• Bail's (2012) computational analysis demonstrated how emotional resonance predicts frame adoption
• Jasper's (2011) work on moral emotions highlighted how different framing strategies activate different types of commitment

Biographical Availability and Networks

Core concepts: Social ties, movement socialization, biographical constraints

Key findings:

• Pre-existing network ties remain the strongest predictor of initial movement participation
• Sustained engagement correlates with integration into movement-related social networks
• The "biographical availability" (free time, minimal competing commitments) affects participation levels

Evidence strength: Very strong. Consistent findings across movements, methodologies, and time periods.

Notable research:

• McAdam's (1986) study of Freedom Summer showed network ties predicted high-risk activism
• Passy and Giugni's (2001) work demonstrated how networks both recruit and socialize members
• Corrigall-Brown's (2012) longitudinal research identified how life transitions affect continued participation

Emotional Dimensions

Core concepts: Moral shock, collective emotions, emotional energy, affective commitment

Key findings:

• "Moral shocks" drive initial mobilization but rarely sustain long-term commitment
• Positive emotions from collective action (solidarity, hope, pride) better predict sustained engagement
• Groups that provide emotional rewards alongside instrumental goals show higher retention

Evidence strength: Strong and growing. Initially understudied, emotional factors now recognized as crucial through both qualitative and quantitative research.

Notable research:

• Jasper's (2018) work on "the emotions of protest" showed how different emotional processes operate at different stages
• Collins' (2001) interaction ritual theory demonstrated how emotional energy from successful collective actions fuels continued participation
• Goodwin et al.'s (2009) edited volume synthesized evidence on how emotional processes function in movements

Application to Your Colleague's Concerns

Your colleague's observations align with several empirical findings:

1. On professional boundaries: The research strongly supports the importance of social bonds and informal connections. Corrigall-Brown found that when activism becomes integrated into participants' broader social lives, persistence increases significantly. Their suggestion of physical community spaces aligns with findings from Haunss and Leach (2007) on the importance of "free spaces" for movement culture.
2. On single-issue communication: The framing literature confirms the trade-off they identify. Snow and Benford's work on "frame bridging" suggests organizations might develop ways to connect animal issues to other concerns without requiring complete ideological alignment. Their idea of different "flavors" of thought leadership is supported by research on "multi-organizational fields" (Curtis and Zurcher, 1973).

Recommendations Based on Evidence

1. Hybrid engagement models: The strongest evidence supports creating tiered engagement opportunities with different commitment levels—from single-petition signers to core organizers—with pathways between levels.
2. Community-building infrastructure: Physical spaces, regular gatherings, and shared rituals consistently show high impact on commitment. Putnam's (2000) work on social capital confirms the value of their community space idea.
3. Frame diversification: Research supports developing multiple frames for different audiences while maintaining coalition coherence, similar to their suggestion about diverse thought leaders.
4. Emotional cultivation: Strong evidence indicates that organizations should intentionally cultivate positive emotional experiences alongside instrumental campaigns.
5. Life-course integration: Help supporters integrate their animal advocacy with other life domains rather than treating it as a separate activity.

Seems important, thanks for raising! Your first suggestion seems very plausible to me, your second seems somewhat plausible but less likely/important.

My first reaction is that animal advocacy orgs should consider optimising for community building and mobilisation (as an interim goal). My impression (which may be wrong) from my involvement with the movement was roughly that orgs were usually optimising for mobilisation around specific objectives rather than actually trying to set up a long-term community and strong activist base. I expect a simple mindset shift from "my job is to generate progress on our campaigns" to "my job is to grow a community of sustained and dedicated activists" would unlock a bunch of options. E.g. it probably means more things like meetups, reading groups, etc. 

Second reaction: I believe there's a rich academic literature on mobilising supporters and sustaining engagement in social movements. So I asked Claude for a summary which I'll post as a reply to this comment. There's some empirical support for your suggestions!

Great point! I need to think about that framing more, I think.

Since you requested responses: I agree with something like: 'conditional upon AI killing us all and then going on to do things that have zero moral (dis)value, it then matters little who was most responsible for that having happened'. But this seems like an odd framing to me:

• Even if focusing solely on AI alignment, different actors have varying levels of responsibility for worsening various risk factors or contributing to various safety/security/mitigation between now and the arrival of transformative AI / ASI.
• The post asked about AGI. Reaching AGI is not the same as reaching ASI, which is not the same as extinction.
• It seems very possible that humanity could survive but the world could end up as severely net negative. See "The Future Might Not Be So Great", "s-risks", and the upcoming EA Forum debate week
• In particular, I believe AI alignment is not enough to ensure positive futures. See for example risks of stable totalitarianism, risks from malevolent actors, risks from ideological fanaticism. We can think of 'human misalignment' or misuse of AI.