Hi RandomEA,

That section of the website discusses why a fund can be a good option and then lists the funds that are available on EA Funds (the four EA Funds plus the Regranting organisations listed on EA Funds, minus CEA's Community Building Grants as we felt that was less targeted towards a general public audience that would typically visit that page).

Hope that helps to clarify.

Best,

Luke

For what it's worth – Giving What We Can also noticed a bump in pledges that came from The  Life You Can Save book relaunch (and people specifying that is how they found out). There's often spill over like this that isn't directly tracked by the organisation doing the multiplying.

Giving to a DAF is definitely within the spirit of the pledge and many members do this. We'll be updating the big long FAQ page soon but in the meantime this is one of the FAQs on the Pledge page.

This is great. Did you write this?

Indeed! Thanks for all these great contributions! It was a great start to my morning 😍

Interesting – please keep me in the loop with this research 😀 

I often ask these questions and get 95%+ agreement when teaching a class.

Hi Larks,

Thanks for the input. I'm sorry I'm not entirely following what you are suggesting here.

I'd be very happy to take input on what you would suggest.

The essence of the pledge is to be a useful commitment device that helps people to stick to a commitment knowing that they've promised it to themselves and also to others (e.g. by taking a public pledge where your name is alongside others).

However, we don't want the commitment to be seen as so high that no one would take it on a slight chance that the best thing for themselves and the world would be that they resign. 

I completely agree that broken commitments are bad (as laid out in the document), but shying away from commitments because there's a chance they might be broken is also bad.

I'm very open to any suggestions you have for how to communicate that.

In regards to the "scrupulous to a point of detriment" I'm referring to cases where scrupulousness is detrimental (i.e. Scrupulosity, OCD). If someone has that propensity it is probably better to not make a more ambitious and narrow commitment that there's a chance they might need to resign from (and instead make a softer commitment or one with very very clear caveats).

Thanks again 😀 

Thanks Ofer. What do you think about changing this wording on the guide:

"Some people might be less inclined to do direct work if they take a pledge." -> "Some people might be less inclined to do direct work (due to "lock-in" or not having enough runway/financial stability) if they take a pledge."

"It’s important for people to consider this seriously. Only they can know how they will feel." -> "It’s important for people to consider this seriously, understand their financial situation, and under what conditions it is best to resign."

In terms of the wording of the pledge itself, I lean towards keeping it as is while including the FAQ which includes information about resigning from the pledge (we make promises all the time that have implied conditionality, such as the example about picking up your niece from school, and marriages which most people agree should end if that is best, but that's rarely in the vows).

In cases where someone is particularly scrupulous to a point of detriment I would recommend either not pledging or if they did, to take a Try Giving pledge and renewing it on a regular basis.

I'm very open to further discussion on these points.