All of jonathancourtney's Comments + Replies

Just wanted to chime in and say I think this is a really great idea!  Looking forward to seeing the program grow in the years to come!

Hey Jeffhe- the position you put forward looks structurally really similar to elements of Scanlon's, and you discuss a dillema that is often discussed in the context of his work (the lifeboat/the rocks example)- It also seems like given your reply to objection 3 you might really like it's approach (if you are not familiar with it already). Subsection 7 of this SEP article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism/) gives a good overview of the case that is tied to the one you discuss. The idea of the separateness of persons, and the idea that o... (read more)

0
Jeffhe
6y
Hi Jonathan, Thanks for directing me to Scanlon's work. I am adequately familiar with his view on this topic, at least the one that he puts forward in What We Owe to Each Other. There, he tried to put forward an argument to explain why we should save the greater number in a choice situation like the one involving Bob, Amy and Susie, which respected the separateness of persons, but his argument has been well refuted by people like Michael Otsuka (2000, 2006). Regarding your second point, what reason can you give for giving each person less than the maximum equal chance possible (e.g. 50%) aside from wanting to sidestep a conclusion that is worrying to you? Suppose I choose to give Bob, Amy and Susie each a 1% of being saved, instead of each a 50% of being saved, and I say to them, "Hey none of you have anything to complain about because I'm technically giving each of you an equal chance, even though most likely, none of you will be saved." Each of them can reasonably protest that doing so does not treat them with the appropriate level of concern. Say then, I give each of them a 1/3 chance of being saved (as you propose we do) and again I say to them, "Hey none of you have anything to complain about because I'm technically giving each of you an equal chance". Don't you think they can reasonably protest in the same way until I give them each the maximum equal chance (i.e. 50%)? Regarding your third point, I don't see how I can divide up the groups differently. They come to me as given. For example, I can't somehow switch Bob and Amy's place such that the choice situation is one of either helping Amy or helping Bob and Susie. How would I do that?

Hey Richard,

Thanks for the comment- I might just field my best reply to these points and let Michelle chime in if I get any of it wrong!

I can totally understand your confusion- Giving What We Can does, in a great deal of its research, and its promotional material, focus on the project of eliminating extreme poverty. This is because we believe that projects that focus on the elimination of extreme poverty (the provision of bednets, or drugs for Schistosomiasis, ect) are one of the ways we can do the most good with our time and money. As you can imagine, i... (read more)

-1
richardcanal
8y
Hi Jonathan, I agree that if you're goal is to "do the most good" that majority of EAs (myself included) believe that reducing extreme poverty is the most tractable/efficient way to do that at the current moment. I think the main issue is that when people are learning about EA, if they find major discrepancies between GWWC currently stated mission (helping reduce poverty) and some materials like the blog post above (mission being do most good) it becomes difficult to figure out what's going on. One recommendation I have is that if a major rebranding effort is happening within GWWC, an email out to Pledge members/chapter leads etc., and blog post on GWWC's blog and updating the various mission statements would be a good start. I was extremely surprised reading the post, when I follow many effective altruism forums/websites/materials and have never once seen GWWC even hinting at being cause neutral with the exception of the Pledge. I find a good analogy for this situation is climate scientists, they are "cause neutral" when it comes to global warming, it just happens that all the science/facts point towards global warming being a real man made thing that should be addressed. I'm very happy for the new direction, with GWWC being primarily focused on making the world a better place via donations to effective charities. Richard

༼ノಠل͟ಠ༽ノ-︵-┻━┻

:D

Awesome- thanks for clarifying! Looking forward to listening to the recording.

This looks really great! I was wondering is there any chance that the conference call will be recorded? 7PM PST is a bit late for those of us in GMT, and I would be super keen to hear more about what you and your team have been up to!

Also I am probably just wrong about this, but isn't there a fairly strong correlative link between higher IQ and higher income? Shouldn't we expect that the IQ benefits of salt iodization would lead to increased economic outcomes given the correlation between these two traits? Or is the rough idea that we shouldn't expect to see that correlation in the context of the developing world?

3
Joey
8y
It will indeed be recorded and posted on our website, sorry about the time zones its hard to accommodate everyone outside of normal working and sleeping hours given the spread of the EA movement. So re-IQ it was really tricky, your right there is pretty good evidence of developed world income and IQ correlation but generally we found metrics like this did not connect as strongly to the same result happening in the developing world as we would have expected and found a lot less evidence for a connection in the developing world. Additionally there was quite a bit of data on the lack of correlation with IQ and subjective well-being and health in the developing world which further worried us. We can see reasonable people making different judgement calls on how to weight off these factors.

Looking forward to hearing more about this at EA Global Oxford!

I just wanted to +1 this post! In general I agree there needs to be more opportunity for open communications with new EAs! This is why I think developing new local presences/chapters for EA is so important (cue, shameless plug of what I am working on!).

I should also note that all of us at Giving What We Can are always happy to chat with new people in the movement! Alison Woodman (alison.woodman@givingwhatwecan.org) is a great first point of contact, and I am also always happy to chat! (jonathan.courtney@givingwhatwecan.org)

An idea that just sprung to mi... (read more)

0[anonymous]9y
Re: Hangouts, absolutely I've been thinking the same thing. Both for the more isolated and conference calls about specific topics. Maybe with an expert. (Like the one with Matthew Gertzel about EA policy). I'd be happy to make these happen, anyone want to cooperate?

You can also join the Giving What We Can Mailing list at the bottom of any of the main pages of the website:

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

Thanks for this Alex- a really great post for EA chapters who are just starting out!

Thanks for the great post Peter! As Michelle mentioned I am spending most of my time focusing on chapter growth, and helping to support established and emerging chapters. I completely agree with everything you said about the importance of local groups- in particular I think you are right that we need to be spending more time on supporting new EA meet-ups once they have started up. More generally i think local meet-ups and chapters have a really important role to play in the 'EA funnel'. They serve as a natural 'next-step' after people have heard about ... (read more)

A good point- making your giving public is a really great way for getting other people involved!

If you want to make your MyGiving page public, you can find a link to do so under the 'edit' tab.

If you want to check out my giving history, feel free to look at the link here:

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/igivedisplay?publicid=993&publicauth=684959826

A good point! The 3-5 number averages over a number of chapters, many of whom have been running for several years and are well established, and so is likely on the optimistic side.

I absolutely agree with your point that if your chapter produces 1 pledge, that is an amazing achievement that should be congratulated! That said, I don't think it is right to say that the median chapter produces 0 pledges a year- most chapters which start up and run a successful first year on average result in at least one or two pledges. I should also note that my analysis... (read more)

2
Clifford
9y
Maybe I was being too negative in counting the chapters that make a go of trying and then end up fizzling out. If you manage to run a year of events with consistent effort then perhaps getting one or two pledges is fair. 3-5 is higher than when I was working with chapters, but great that it's that high now. Yep, completely agree with the overarching point. Keep up the top work.

Agreed- part of valuing the pledge at $20,000US (rather than the $150,000US that the median earner would donate over their life time) is an attempt to capture this sort of counter-factual concern.

I also totally agree about your point about personal connections- I think many people find that they do a lot to motivate them to do more for EA- just another way that chapters are awesome!

Thanks for the feedback- I will be sure to simplify the script and use room tone in the next video!

Do you have any suggestions for blogs/guides I can read up on for other tips?

Cheers!

2
tomstocker
9y
Gates foundation seem quite good at video content aimed at communicating similar types of things to popular audiences?
1
Bitton
9y
There's a guy on a movie message board I used to read that did a series of "30 Minute Film Schools" a while ago. Here's the one on audio and here's one on prosumer cameras. I think he has an especially fun way of teaching - his writing style reminds me of Slate Star Codex.

Hey Tom, not sure about TLYCS's study, but we plan to make ours public (and I imagine they will too!)

Hey Jonathon, this is a really great initiative! Giving What We Can is currently in the process of designing an experiment to test the effectiveness of our pamphlets. We were hoping to run it in London some time late January, early February. We should coordinate on our experiment design [I will post more details on the forum once we have firmed up details about the experiment design].

0
tomstocker
9y
After trailing and fiddling to see what works - how much would 20 million copies of a pamphlette aimed at a general audience cost? The post office gives a lot to charity and I can imagine that it wouldn't be impossible to persuade them to send this out as a one off free of charge - at least to the houses they're already posting mail to.. Perhaps different language for different postcodes? Chelsea does not equal Bradford in terms of how appeals might work (religious backgrounds, education levels, size of household, disposable income etc.)
2
Tom_Ash
9y
Cool, will the results be public?
0
jonathonsmith
9y
That would be great! I'll connect with you on Facebook and we can open up a line of communication there.

I would be happy to be on the list as well! My email is: jonathan.courtney@givingwhatwecan.org Cheers!

Also, if you are interested in getting in contact with Giving What We Can members/chapters/meet-ups please feel free to email me!

jonathan.courtney@givingwhatwecan.org

(I am the current Director of Community for Giving What We Can)