Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 23 April 2017 07:16:06PM 1 point [-]

I don't understand the question.

Comment author: DonyChristie 24 April 2017 09:38:50PM 0 points [-]

Allocating grants according to a ranked preference vote of an arbitrary amount of people (and having them write up their arguments); what is the optimal number here? Where is the inflection point where adding more people decreases the quality of the grants?

On tertiary reading I somewhat misconstrued "three fund managers" as "three fund managers per fund" rather than "the three fund managers we have right now (Nick, Elie, Lewis)", but the possibility is still interesting with any variation.

Comment author: RyanCarey 23 April 2017 11:08:18PM *  15 points [-]

Some feedback on your feedback (I've only quickly read your post once, so take it with a grain of salt):

  • I think that this is more discursive than it needs to be. AFAICT, you're basically arguing that you think that decision-making and trust in the EA movement is a over-concentrated in OpenPhil.
  • If it was a bit shorter, then it would also be easier to run it by someone involved with OpenPhil, which prima facie would be at least worth trying, in order to correct any factual errors.
  • It's hard to do good criticism, but starting out with long explanations of confidence games and Ponzi schemes is not something that makes the criticism likely to be well-received. You assert that these things are not necessarily bad, so why not just zero in on the thing that you think is bad in this case?
  • So maybe this could have been split into two posts?
  • Maybe there are more upsides of having somewhat concentrated decision-making than you lead on? Perhaps cause prioritization will be better? Since EA funds is a movement-wide scheme, perhaps reputational trust is extra important here, and the diversification would come from elsewhere? Perhaps the best decision-makers will naturally come to work on this full-time.

You may still be right, though I would want some more balanced analysis.

Comment author: DonyChristie 24 April 2017 06:43:58AM 6 points [-]

I enjoyed the SSC-style length and thought it helpful in fully explicating his arguments. :) It may be the case that an artificially-shortened version of the post would not be as listened-to. But perhaps a TL;DR could go at the top.

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 22 April 2017 02:08:29AM 4 points [-]

Or maybe allocate grants according to a ranked preference vote of the three fund managers, plus have them all individually and publicly write up their reasoning and disagreements? I'd like that a lot.

Comment author: DonyChristie 23 April 2017 07:04:02PM 0 points [-]

Or maybe allocate grants according to a ranked preference vote of the three fund managers, plus have them all individually and publicly write up their reasoning and disagreements?

Serious question: What do you think of N fund managers in your scenario?

Comment author: DonyChristie 03 April 2017 03:54:09PM 0 points [-]

This font is really hard to read.

Comment author: Raemon 25 March 2017 10:32:07PM *  7 points [-]

Thanks for doing this!

My sense is what people are missing is a set of social incentives to get started. Looking at any one of these, they feel overwhelming, they feel like they require skills that I don't have. It feels like if I start working on it, then EITHER I'm blocking someone whose better qualified from working on it OR someone who's better qualified will do it anyway and my efforts will be futile.

Or, in the case of research, my bad quality research will make it harder for people to find good quality research.

Or, in the case of something like "start one of the charities Givewell wants people to start", it feels like... just, a LOT of work.

And... this is all true. Kind of. But it's also true that the way people get good at things is by doing them. And I think it's sort of necessary for people to throw themselves into projects they aren't prepared for, as long as they can get tight feedback looks that enable them to improve.

I have half-formed opinions about what's needed to resolve that, that can be summarized as "better triaged mentorship." I'll try to write up more detailed thoughts soon.

Comment author: DonyChristie 27 March 2017 06:48:24PM 0 points [-]

Please do! Have you gotten started yet? :-) #humancommitmentdevice

In response to Open Thread #36
Comment author: DonyChristie 15 March 2017 11:00:20PM 2 points [-]

I've noticed a sizeable minority of posts in this forum have a font that is difficult for me to read. It's the second most-used font after the font in the OP. Does anyone know what it is?

I would recommend not using that font, personally.

Comment author: LKor 09 March 2017 07:03:05PM 4 points [-]

+1 this. Hate FB. EA is the only reason I semi-regularly think about returning.

Comment author: DonyChristie 15 March 2017 10:56:56PM *  0 points [-]

That's useful to know. What other online presence besides this forum would you recommend people use?

Comment author: DonyChristie 24 February 2017 08:04:23PM -1 points [-]

Here's my submission. :)

Comment author: RomeoStevens 08 February 2017 09:55:32PM 7 points [-]

a general unwillingness to explore new topics.

this feels really obvious from where I'm sitting but is met with incredulity by most EAs I speak with. Applause lights for new ideas paired with a total lack of engagement when anyone talks about new ideas seems more dangerous than I think we're giving credit.

Comment author: DonyChristie 21 February 2017 11:38:57PM 0 points [-]

I have been observing the same thing. What could we do to spark new ideas? Perhaps a recurring thread dedicated to it on this forum or Facebook, or perhaps a new Facebook group? A Giving Game for unexplored topics? How can we encourage creativity?

Comment author: DonyChristie 10 February 2017 03:59:51PM 1 point [-]

I was also one of the volunteers who experienced a personal motivation failure; my apologies Linch!

I can confirm, having seen and provided some of the data, that it is not nearly enough to provide any meaningful conclusions whatsoever beyond the success/failure of the experiment itself. Still, it is great this experiment was done and written up despite the problems encountered!

View more: Next