All of So-Low Growth's Comments + Replies
Great post! I'm in touch with a researcher who's working on an academic project in the UK who would like to have a quick chat with any of the folks in the team. Just sent a message on the RP site, but if you're happy to be put in touch, feel free to DM or comment here.
Isn't there a strong motivation for following-up with a conference introducing these professors to EA?
Fwiw, I have a set of slides by a very high profile growth economist (top 10 in the world in terms of citations in growth) on why this paper may be incorrect. They have a theoretical model with testable empirical implications.
If anyone is interested in collaborating on this, I'd be potentially interested in having early chats.
Ah frustrating! I'm surprised Tyler didn't say yes, given your previous blog posts.
Random thought - maybe it's worth applying to EAF/LTFF for replicating EA specific papers?
These are great Gavin.
It's been a while since I worked on global development issues (largely focusing on NTDs back in 2014/15) but did Farmer not also help popularise the biosocial approach (which I thought had a large impact) ? No mention of 'biosocial' on the wiki page though.
I think it's this paper http://evavivalt.com/wp-content/uploads/Weighing-the-Evidence.pdf. Fwiw, all of Eva's papers are worth reading!
Sidenote - love your work and WiP (I'm also part of the PS community). Hope to see you on the EAF again!
Actually I could be incorrect. I think Eva Vivalt has a paper on this (no time to dig up right now).
One indirect advantage of RCTs is that I'd guess (I'd imagine this has been tested somewhere) that they are easier to understand compared to other causal inference methods. Maybe that makes it easier to pitch to people who aren't trained in statistics (often policy makers).
Not sure of this though...
Fwiw, I'd imagine you are all less succumb to weighting other evaluators negative points (different interests at play to journal reviewers) - but still may be a bias here.
Peaked my curiosity, what sort of clever thing?
The sharing of information can - sometimes - lead to more conservative funding due to people weighting other peoples' weak points greater than their strong points. See here for a really fascinating paper in the economics of science: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4107
I like the idea but then a potential counter-point would be we should just simple expand Oxford's GPI/FHI. Both of these are within Oxford, which adds a lot of prestige/credibility etc.
I think the counter-point here is that currently EAs publish in more mainstream journals, allowing them to gain exposure to a wide audience. Having a niche EA journal (even if buying a popular one and changing it) may reduce the audience/respectability (i.e. considered fringe etc.).
IIRC, OpenPhil are funding EAish academics to produce online courses. I think the old Peter Singer one on Coursera/EDx did pretty well.
Thanks for the quick response Kevin. Haha, so in my original question I was going to say 'with the exclusion of the work of Chad Jones', i.e. the intersection of growth theory and EA/longtermism, which seem quite clear to me.
I would be interested in hearing about the other presenters: (Ben) Jones, Azoulay, Williams, Reenen, etc.
What are the intersections between this and EA focused research? Would love to see some examples if you (or anyone else) has any.
Yes. I think we can essentially nerd-snipe academics. Maybe get a bunch of social scientists and have a mini-conference about what other EA researchers are doing: say AI governance, forecasting, etc.
It gives them a network, an idea of what others are doing, and accelerated intro into EA.
Does seem like the ROI could be large.
I think it's a cool idea.
One thing that comes to mind that I have noticed is many academics aren't aware of EA but I think they would be on board. Many of these academics have time (often tenured), resources (to help EA students), and networks. I wonder if there's a way of targeting/appealing to this demographic.
I like the post but I'm not entirely convinced. Even if these are optional classes to pad your degree out, you'd have to think taking history classes adds more value than all other potential options. I don't entirely believe that's the case even if I agree with many of your points in the post.
Trying my luck here but would I also be able to get funds for academic projects (my research interests are in Metascience/Innovation/Growth)?
That's the one! OP, I think some version of this is definitely worth implementing/revival. I often share various EA articles on my personal twitter feed, and I know people (for example Stefan Schubert) who share EA articles, which captures an audience (that find the content interesting/engaging) that do not always read the EAF regularly.
Will check some of these out. Not sure if this fits your criteria but a personal favourite is the documentary about Aaron Swartz.
Thanks for this - one of my favourite blogs!
Few questions (not all directly related to the job, so feel free to skip all/any of them):
- How do you think blogging compares to other careers available to you in terms of impact?
- Why not set up a Patreon (I'm aware you've got some grants)?
- Why remain pseudonymous?
- Why the name ADS?
-
It depends on your skillset. My impression is that EA is not really talent constrained, with regards to the talents I currently have. So I would have a bit to offer on the margins, but that's all. I also just don't think I'm nearly as productive when working on a specific set of goals, so there's some tradeoff there. I'm interested in doing RSP one day, and might apply in the future. In theory I think the Vox Future Perfect role could be super high impact.
-
I probably should.
-
The short answer is that it's an irreversible decision, so I'm being overly
"For some projects, a small adjustment could unlock huge academic value." Would you be able to provide examples please?
Good idea! May be worth reaching out to the LSE Econ PhD programme (I see you're attending!), who trialled something similar last year for underrepresented backgrounds (in order to get some feedback on what applicants want).
I think a good addition to this would be providing help to people applying for pre-docs as well, given how important they have become in the profession.
I should have added the following statement. If anyone would like a quick chat about researching cousin marriage, feel free to message me.
Caveat: I'm still fairly new to the topic (there's a lot of non-econ literature) but can try to help wherever possible.
I'm currently actively working on this in my PhD (I'm an Economist), which developed from one of my pre-PhD courses. I have a few different ideas and am currently applying for funding for them. Truthfully, this is not one of my core research interests but I think it's relatively fertile ground for research/publication and I have some nice co-authors that I'm working with, so I don't have to devote too much time to the topic.
A few points:
- The negative biological effects seem to be severe where there is persistent cousin marriage. Otherwise it seems tha
I strongly dislike this and think it gives off the wrong impression about the purpose of the Hotel.
In Economics, there's an account that does this quite well, with a slightly different approach but a somewhat similar aim. It tweets economics pre-doc and RA positions. However, I think people tag the account, and then it gets re-tweeted. Here's the handle: https://twitter.com/econ_ra
Does this help (from the FAQs? "The lottery is administered by the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA). The Centre for Effective Altruism is a registered charity in England and Wales (Charity Number 1149828) and a registered 501(c)(3) Exempt Organization in the USA (EIN 47-1988398). An entry to the lottery is a donation to CEA; CEA will regrant the lottery money, based on the recommendation of the lottery winner.
All grants made are at CEA’s sole discretion. This is a condition of CEA’s status as a tax-deductible non-profit (both in the UK and the US)....
Quick thought here Jack and Jason (caveat - haven't thought about this much at all!).
Yes, the creation of new fields is important. However, even if there are diminishing returns to new fields (sidenote - I've been thinking about ways to try and measure this empirically), what's more important is the applicability of the new field to existing fields.
For example, even if we only create one new field but that field could be incredibly powerful. For example, APM (atomically precise manufacturing), or an AGI of some sorts, then it will have major ra...
Will MacAskill has appeared on JRE before and probably talked about GiveWell. But yes, good news :).
Aaron, I'm really ignorant about this issue but didn't Peter Singer have a course on EA a while back that if I recall correctly was fairly accessible and could be marketed towards high school students?
Alexey, I'm also skeptical of the findings but haven't had time to dig deeper yet, so it's just hunches at the moment. I have already asked you for the draft :). Honestly, can't wait to read it since you announced it last week!
What a great question Benjamin! "Why should a longtermist EA work on boosting economic growth? " Is something I have been thinking about myself (my username gives it away...).
One quick comment on this "I agree Progress Studies itself is far more neglected than general work to boost economic growth"
This spurs a question for me. How is Progress Studies different from people working on Economic Growth?
My perception of EA is that a lot of it is focused on saving lives and relieving suffering. I don't see as much focus on general economic growth and scientific and technological progress.
There are two things to consider here. First, there is value in positives above and beyond merely living without suffering. Entertainment, travel, personal fitness and beauty, luxury—all of these are worth pursuing. Second, over the long run, more lives have been saved and suffering relieved by efforts to pursue general growth and progress than direct charitable efforts. S...
Thanks for doing this Jason. I agree with your response here. Seems natural to think that there are diminishing marginal returns to ideas within a sector.
You mention APM, which would spur progress in other sectors. Are there ways to identify which sectors open up progress in other domains, i.e. identifying the ideas that could remove the constraining factors of progress (small and big)?
Haha - 15 hours of end of the world music sounds up my street! Here's one I like, Charles Bradley, "The World is Going Up in Flames."
Question: Imagine we could quantify the amount of suffering the average person does by eating meat and the amount of environmental damage that comes from eating this meat. How much would they need to donate to the most effective charities (climate change and animal suffering) in order to off-set their meat-eating habit?
Re-read this again just now and truly is a tremendous piece!