Topic Contributions

Comments

Bad Omens in Current Community Building

No no, I still believe it's a great idea. It just needs people to want to do it, and I was just sharing my observation that there doesn't seem to be that many people who want it enough to offset other things in their life (everyone is always busy).

Your comment about "selecting for people who don't find it boring" is a good re-framing, I like it.

A hypothesis for why some people mistake EA for a cult

I've had quite a few people ask me "What's altruism?" when running university clubs fair stalls for EA Wellington.

Bad Omens in Current Community Building

I've been very keen to run "deep dives" where we do independent research on some topic, with the aim that the group as a whole ends up with significantly more expertise than at the start.

I've proposed doing this with my group, but people are disappointingly unreceptive to it, mainly because of the time commitment and "boringness".

EA is more than longtermism

For an overview of most of the current efforts into "epistemic infrastructure", see the comments on my recent post here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qFPQYM4dfRnE8Cwfx/project-a-web-platform-for-crowdsourcing-impact-estimates-of

EA is more than longtermism

For an overview of most of the current efforts into "epistemic infrastructure", see the comments on my recent post here https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/qFPQYM4dfRnE8Cwfx/project-a-web-platform-for-crowdsourcing-impact-estimates-of

Should we buy coal mines?

Post civilizational collapse you might not be able to pay that cost though

Should we buy coal mines?

Buying coal mines to secure energy production post-global-catastrophe is a much more interesting question.

Seems to me that buying coal, rather than mines, is a better idea in that case.

EA is more than longtermism

I'm really hoping we can get some better data on resource allocation and estimated effectiveness to make it clearer when funders or individuals should return to focusing on global poverty etc.

There's a few projects in the works for "ea epistemic infrastructure"

Notes From a Pledger

Ok - this is a good critique of my comment.

I was kind of off-topic and responding to something a bit more general. Since writing my comment I have found someone on the forum summarizing my perspective better.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=mdhfHBe3k5wvqXfo2

 

and relatedly re. funding

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bsTXHJFu3Srurbg7K/leftism-virtue-cafe-s-shortform?commentId=eW8zdL2MiXsgNPgMa

Notes From a Pledger
  1. Strong messaging to the effect of "we need talent" gives the impression that there are enough jobs that if you are reasonably skilled, you can get a job.
  2. Strong messaging to the effect of "we need founders", or "just apply for funding" gives the impression that you will get funding.

In both cases, people can be repeatedly rejected and get extremely disheartened.

Some things that can be done:

  • Communicate (with real examples?) the level of competence required for success in a job / funding application. Unfortunately "apply but don't get sad at rejection" is an unrealistic message to send. Go the other way, and try to make people's self-screening more accurate.
  • Provide better feedback for rejected applicants.
  • Provide more opportunities for up-skilling.
  • Try really, really hard not to filter based on unchangeable parts of people's background such as their education (esp. fanciness of school) and location. (and of course ethnicity, gender etc.)

I've been meaning to write a post but it's a big ball of thoughts and I don't have the right structure for it.

Load More