Comment author: Daniel_Eth 11 August 2018 05:45:02AM 6 points [-]

Are women more likely to return for a second event if the gender ratio of the first event they attended was more balanced? This could tell you whether the difference is simply a result of the community being mostly male right now, or if it's due to some other reason(s).

Comment author: DavidNash 11 October 2018 03:04:09PM *  3 points [-]

I looked into this and of the women that came to just 1 event, there was an average of 49% female attendance. Of women who came to 2 or more events, the first event they came to had, an average of 45% female attendance.

Also of the women who came to 5 or more events, half of them came to an event with less than 40% female attendance and half of them came to an event with more than 40%.

Comment author: DavidNash 10 October 2018 03:25:06PM *  5 points [-]

Looking at this part -

"We did include more people from organisations focused on long-termism. It’s not clear what the right method is here, as organisations that are bigger and/or have more influence over the community ought to have more representation, but we think there’s room for disagreement with this decision."

I think one potential reason there are more people interested in EA working at LTF organisations is that EA and LTF are both relatively new ideas. Not many people are considering careers in these areas, so it is much easier for a community to found and staff the majority of organisations.

If global development had been ignored until 5 years ago, it's very likely most of the organisations in this area would be founded by people interested in EA, and they might be over represented in surveys like this.

There may be talent gaps in other cause areas (beyond development and animals) that are missed out as they don't have leaders with EA backgrounds but that doesn't mean that those gaps should be under weighted.

It may be worth having a separate survey trying to get opinions considering talent gaps in priority areas whether they are led by people involved in EA or not.

Comment author: saulius  (EA Profile) 22 September 2018 09:56:13AM 6 points [-]

The majority of people who took the survey reported being male (68%), while 26% of respondents reported that they were female, and 13% described themselves as other or declined to self-identify

That adds up to more than 100%. I am confused.

Comment author: DavidNash 01 October 2018 10:39:50AM *  0 points [-]

Edit - Incorrect guess.

My guess is it was meant to say 1.3%, and that not prefer wasn't included.

Looking at this year the figure is 1.9%, and I'm assuming the second figure for prefer not to answer is meant to be 2.1% not 21 people.

Comment author: DavidNash 09 September 2018 07:46:13PM 0 points [-]

Would it be possible for posts/comments to have to be approved before getting posted, or at least for users that haven't gained a certain amount of karma.

Comment author: Dale 10 August 2018 10:59:48PM *  -3 points [-]

Interesting data!

Sounds like churn is much lower with men. Unless it is much more expensive (in terms of advertising etc.) to get new men, which looking at the '1+' row doesn't seem to be the case, or women are more productive, this suggests you have a higher Customer-Lifetime-Value / Customer-Acquisition-Cost ratio with men. If this is the case then, to the extent you can, you should re-allocate your efforts at the relevant margin towards attracting more men.

https://www.klipfolio.com/resources/kpi-examples/saas-metrics/customer-lifetime-value-to-customer-acquisition-ratio

Comment author: DavidNash 10 August 2018 11:33:17PM 5 points [-]

It may be a bit short sighted to try and grow in a way that leads to 0.1% of people being interested in effective altruism rather than 5%.

It seems to be a mistake that both the atheist and skeptic communities have made in the past.

Comment author: DavidNash 10 August 2018 08:27:44PM 5 points [-]

There is also some data from Facebook groups that might add context.

On the EA London group with 1797 members the split is 43.8% women and 54.7% men.

For the London animal group with 495 members the split is 50.6% women and 46.9% men.

Comment author: evemccormick 09 August 2018 05:02:38PM 10 points [-]

Hey, thanks for this :)

EA Cambridge (UK) has been tracking gender ratios at events for several years now, and we have fairly complete data for the last year. As far as I know, this hasn't yet been written up or shared in any formal way, but that is something I would like to do in the near future.

On the topic of pub socials, I don't find the gender bias surprising. The pub socials which we started running this year, aimed at non-students and postgrads, were almost always heavily male-dominated. Other types of pub social that we've run, targetted at newcomers, people somewhat engaged, and people deeply engaged in the community respectively, have similarly been male-dominated. At least two women, despite being deeply involved in the EA Cambridge community, have mentioned to me that they do not feel comfortable at pub socials. So while I think there are probably several reasons why fewer women attend socials in general (e.g. to do with women often feeling less comfortable in situations where they're expected to talk on a topic, especially when they're new), pub environments might compound the problem.

Very much looking forward to reading the results of your research about what motivates men and women to attend events :)

Comment author: DavidNash 09 August 2018 07:03:06PM 11 points [-]

Looking at other social events not at pubs the ratio has been similar, ranging from picnics, hikes, Disney movies, restaurants, education/animal focused topics.

In response to Open Thread #40
Comment author: Jared_Winslow 30 July 2018 11:41:48PM 3 points [-]

Hello everyone! I'm new to the EA Forum and it'd be great if I could get some karma so I can start contributing more. :)

This next fall I am running a university EA group. Is there anyone who has run an EA group that has any advice for me other than the basic information on EA Hub? What types of events were the most fun? What types of events were the most effective in gaining members or discussing issues?

Comment author: DavidNash 31 July 2018 11:15:20AM 2 points [-]

Hey Jared, you may get more of a response in the group organisers group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/956362287803174/

In response to Open Thread #40
Comment author: RandomEA 12 July 2018 04:03:49PM 5 points [-]

Should EAs work on reducing food waste?

According to USDA statistics, a significant percent of food purchased by consumers goes uneaten (15% of chicken, 35% of turkey, 20% of beef, 29% of pork, and 23% of the edible portion of eggs). If consumers wasted less food, they would purchase less meat/eggs/dairy, which would lead to fewer animals suffering on factory farms.

One factor that could be driving food waste is confusing date labeling. For example, an egg container may have a 'Sell By' date meant to help retailers manage their inventory, but a consumer who sees the label and date some time after purchasing might throw the eggs away thinking they are no longer safe to eat. One possible solution is a federal labeling law that limits producers to listing the freshness date and the expiration date (and requires them to use specific easy to understand phrases when listing either). However, there are several reasons that working towards such a law may be a bad use of resources. First, legal change may be unnecessary as it appears the food industry may voluntarily adopt such a system. Second, it's unclear how much labeling reform reduces food waste (I was unable to find any studies in my brief search). Third, it may be that the primary benefits of reducing animal product consumption are the long term effects, in which case reductions in consumption driven by factors other than concern for animals may be much less impactful. Of course, there may also be other ways to reduce food waste (to which the first two concerns would not apply).

In response to comment by RandomEA on Open Thread #40
Comment author: DavidNash 13 July 2018 09:10:54AM *  0 points [-]

I think there was some data that showed the majority of waste happened before a product got to a supermarket, and that switching to plant based/clean meat would be more efficient than cutting waste between shop and bin.

On page 37 of this report it says, for poultry, 11% of feed energy gets converted into human food. https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/wri13_report_4c_wrr_online.pdf

If 15% of the 11% gets wasted that seems less of priority than the original 89% that is lost, although maybe it would be a more tractable and neglected area to work on.

In response to Open Thread #39
Comment author: danbakke 26 June 2018 02:28:47AM 0 points [-]

Hey, everyone! What do you think about ocean plastics in terms of tractable, impactful, and neglected solutions?

I am a plastics manufacturing engineer with EA on the brain. Here are the assumptions I've found based on my research so far:

We dump lots of plastic into our oceans, it destabilizes economies in some places and also poisons food/water supplies, i.e. high cost to humanity. Consumers are interested in buying products with post-consumer recycled content for a small price difference because they know that it reduces plastic that would otherwise go into the ocean. Brands are interested in creating these products to pique consumer interest. Manufacturers are interested in making these products but are limited by technology in terms of how much recycled content can be added. Our current recycling technology is not as advanced or capable as it could be. Steering technology can be an efficient path for Effective Altruism under some circumstances. If I can work for a business, start a business, or conduct research for an organization that improves recycling technology, I can benefit humanity in a highly leveraged way (i.e. assist in diverting millions or tens of millions of pounds of plastic from the ocean each year).

Question 1: is there anything philosophically or economically wrong with my assumptions? check them please! Question 2: is there something else I can work on that would be better? Question 3: is there a different place I should ask these questions? Question 4: can anyone point me to a contact who is knowledgeable about any of these topics? Question 5: is there anyone else who is working on ocean plastic, especially in a scaleable way?

Thanks for the help.

Dan

In response to comment by danbakke on Open Thread #39
Comment author: DavidNash 06 July 2018 09:48:33AM 0 points [-]

You may get more of a response here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1509936222639432/

View more: Next