"I also find it easier to stay motivated when I think about the fact that people around the world are getting better off, and how that’s often down to the hard work of others."
This is definitely helpful and motivating for me atm, thank you for posting this today :)
Haven't read all of it- but I believe there's an error in the first line, which says this is the "second of three parts", I think it means third. Sorry my engagement isn't more interesting :P
Good article in lots of ways. I'm perhaps slightly put off by the sheer amount of info here- I don't feel like I can input all of this easily, given my own laziness and number of goals which I feel like I prioritise. Not sure there's an easy solution to that (maybe some sort of two three top suggestions?), but feel like this is a bit of an information overload. Thanks for writing it though Darius, I enjoyed it :)
I just spent a very exciting hour going through every link (yes, I clicked all of them) in the handbook, and I think I have a definitive list of mistakes in the links (if there are others, may they remain mistakes ever more :P ):
p.47, Engines of Creation
p.77 expected value link
p.77 Risk aversion and rationality , Use http://fitelson.org/seminar/buchak2.pdf instead
p.80 – scope insensitivity
p.80- Luke Muehlhauser has commented
p.127 “our profile on the long-run future”
Footnote 43, p.137, link 2, related to diarrhoea
p.142, “animal welfare profile”
P.144- systemic change profile link works, but looks slightly unprofessional
You could do with a link to the 80,000 Hours Podcast and the Doing Good Better podcast on p.166
I think there's a mix of working and non-working, having just checked myself. Some don't go through to anything when you click on them; some go through to a 404 error; and some go through to the correct website.
Bizarrely, this will depend on the copy I have downloaded. I have downloaded it more than once, and it works differently each time. The first one I have downloaded (I downloaded more than once in different tabs) works in every link I check. The second one doesn't- and this remains true when comparing certain links like for like. I'm not really sure why. Bit bizarre.
A few quick comments, have skimmed through rather than a read in depth (have read a number of the articles in the past):
Mainly, though I liked it, so my critical points aren't to be understood as a total rejection of the piece! It was great in so many ways, and I'm sure required a fair amount of work!
Interesting stuff, thanks guys. I wanted to discuss one point:
For example, is it possible that Cambridge get a significantly higher number of people involved, which then cancels out the effects of immediately high-fidelity models in due course (e.g. suppose lots of people are low fidelity while at Cam, but then a section become more high-fidelity later, and it ends up not making that much difference in the long run)? Or does the Cambridge model use roles as an effective commitment device? Or does one model ensure less movement drift, or less lost value from movement drift? (see here http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1ne/empirical_data_on_value_drift/?refresh=true) There's a comment from David Moss here suggesting there's an "open question" about the value of focussing on more engaged individuals, given the risks of attrition in large movements (assuming the value of the piece, which is subject to lots of methodological caveats).
The qs above might be contradictory- I'm not advocating any of the above, but instead clarifying whether there's anything missed by your suggestions.