Really excited to see this published. This is something I've heard people speculate about a lot over the years ("are people in places with higher child mortality more accepting of it, because it's more normal, and so are we overweighting deaths?") and it's helpful to see what the people we're trying to help actually value.
(And that's on top of us not being able to survey the children!)
Thoughts, now that I've read it:
Looking over the website I noticed Studying Early Stage Science under "Recent Research". I haven't read it yet, but will!
Thanks for writing this! I'm really glad Leverage has decided to start sharing more.
I wonder whether it would be worth building some standard terms for this and trying to make it a thing?
Thanks! Though like all my blog posts it's already public on my website: https://www.jefftk.com/p/candy-for-nets
If ~50% of people drift away over five years it's hard to say how many do over 2-3, but it should be at least 25%-35% . You need pretty large tax savings to risk a chance that large of actually donating nothing.
 13%/year for five years gives you 50%, and I think I'd expect the rate of attrition to slowly decrease over time? 25% for two years and 35% for three is assuming it's linear.
Facebook and Google have an incentive to track their users because they sell targeted advertising.
Even without ads they would have a very strong reason for tracking: trying to make the product better. Things you do when using Facebook are all fed into a model trying to predict what you like to interact with, so they can prioritize among the enormous number of things they could be showing you.
For every decision I've made, there's a version where the other choice was made.
Is that actually something the many-worlds view implies? It seems like you're conflating "made a choice" with "quantum split"?
(I don't know any of the relevant physics.)
One group I'm especially interested in is people who were active in EA, took the GWWC pledge, and then drifted away (eg). This is a group that likely mostly didn't take the EA Survey. I would expect that after accounting for this the actual fraction of people current on their pledges would be *much* lower.
Since we don't know the fraction of people keeping their pledge to even the nearest 10%, the survey I would find most useful would be a smallish random sample. Pick 25 GWWC members at random, and follow up with them. Write personalized handwritten letters, place a phone call, or get a friend to contact them. This should give very low non-response bias, and also good qualitative data.