Comment author: maswiebe 01 July 2016 09:41:37PM 1 point [-]

Is Tetlock confirmed? He's not listed on

Comment author: JeffMJordan 05 July 2016 10:22:01AM 0 points [-]

As far as I know, he's confirmed.

Comment author: Denkenberger 04 July 2016 01:09:54AM 1 point [-]

This is a good idea. Could you clarify how it relates to the talks that people volunteer for when they register for EAG? Could you confirm that there is no paper associated with the presentation or poster? Will the abstracts be indexed, like on Google scholar? How long will the talks be?

Comment author: JeffMJordan 05 July 2016 10:20:14AM 0 points [-]

This is a separate event from the talks that people can volunteer to give.

We will not be requiring a paper, only an abstract. So feel free to apply if you have an idea you'd like to present but don't have a paper ready. I don't think we currently have plans to index the abstracts on google scholar, but I can check with the more senior organizers to see if they'd like to.

Also, the talks will be around 10 minutes each.


2016 Effective Altruism Global Research Meeting: Call for Abstracts

    Hi everyone, CEA is planning on holding a research event at EAG, and is currently looking for abstracts. This call for abstracts is being sent around to various academic circles, but I thought people here would be interested as well.     2016 Effective Altruism Global Research Meeting... Read More

Humane Pesticides as the Most Marginally Effective Cause

Hey everyone, I wrote a paper on why I think humane pesticides is the best cause area. I've had a few people read it and decided to post it here. Buck Shlegeris had an interesting criticism, which is that I fail to demonstrate why humane pesticides is superior to values... Read More
Comment author: MichaelDickens  (EA Profile) 22 September 2015 05:54:01AM 3 points [-]

Well that's certainly a concern. I'm made more confident by the fact that REG directs funding to multiple charities that are good candidates for top charity, and I believe their model has reasonably good learning value. Plus 1.5:1 is sufficiently higher than 1:1 that I believe it's more likely to have a positive multiplicative effect from outside view.

Comment author: JeffMJordan 22 September 2015 06:02:52AM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure I understand. I would think that in the face of uncertainty it would be better to divide donations in accordance to how likely we find each model.

Comment author: JeffMJordan 22 September 2015 05:46:26AM 2 points [-]

Really quick question: I was wondering why the 1.5:1 ratio is enough to outweigh your uncertainty about REG's impact?