Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 03 May 2018 05:56:47PM 6 points [-]

I think this is a direction Julia and I could have gone around 2011. We didn't donate for a year (Julia was in grad school, I took a pay cut to work at a startup trying to maximize risk neutral returns) and it would have been easy to drift away.

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 14 January 2018 07:25:27AM 5 points [-]

Thanks for writing this up! Collecting knowledge about what did or didn't work is really important for making progress.

Comment author: Khorton 24 December 2017 07:45:27PM 1 point [-]

Shouldn't the title be about 2018?

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 25 December 2017 01:21:27AM 1 point [-]

These are our plans for the rest of 2017. While there aren't many days left, we also haven't made most of our annual donations yet.


Donation Plans for 2017

Each year Julia and I need to decide where we're giving. Here's what we've been thinking about this year: We want to continue dividing our donations 50-50 between things that directly do good and more speculative options. This is the approach we've been following since ~2012, and I think I... Read More
Comment author: SamDeere 04 July 2017 03:26:18AM *  3 points [-]

Short-medium term: some minor UI changes, to bring branding more into line with the rest of

Longer term ideas (caveat — these are just at the thought bubble stage at the moment and it's not clear whether they'd be valuable changes):

  • I think there's appetite for a discussion space that's both content aggregation as well as original content. This might take the form of getting a more active subreddit (for example) happening, but plausibly this could be something specifically built-for-purpose that either integrates with or complements the existing forum.

  • We've thought about integrating logins between the webapp on (what is currently just EA Funds) and the forum to avoid the need to manage multiple accounts when doing various EA things online

  • We've also thought a bit about integrating commenting systems so that discussion that happens on various EA blogs is mirrored on the forum (to avoid splitting discussions when cross-posting).

If there are things that you think would be useful (especially if you've been able to give this more thought than I have) that'd be great to know, with the caveat that we're pretty restricted by developer time on this, and the priority is ensuring ongoing maintenance of the existing infrastructure, rather than building out new features.

[eta spaces between dot points]

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 10 July 2017 04:06:39PM 1 point [-]

We've also thought a bit about integrating commenting systems so that discussion that happens on various EA blogs is mirrored on the forum (to avoid splitting discussions when cross-posting).

I've thought a bunch about this; let me know if you want to talk.

Comment author: mhpage 21 May 2015 08:50:51PM 4 points [-]

I love the idea of outsourcing my donation decisions to someone who is much more knowledgeable than I am about how to be most effective. An individual might be preferable to an organization for reasons of flexibility. Is anyone actually doing this -- e.g., accepting others' EtG money?

In fact, I'd outsource all kinds of decisions to the smartest, most well-informed, most value-aligned person I could find. Why on earth would I trust myself to make major life decisions if I'm primarily motivated by altruistic considerations?

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 20 June 2017 02:20:47PM 0 points [-]
Comment author: Elizabeth 26 April 2017 11:40:14PM 1 point [-]

i can see it clearly now, not sure if I was inattentive or something went wrong the first time I loaded the page.

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 27 April 2017 07:02:00PM 2 points [-]

if it happens again, I'd love a screenshot so I can debug

Comment author: Elizabeth 24 April 2017 01:46:10PM *  3 points [-]

Fyi, original comment was deleted and it now looks like you're criticizing a reasonable post, at least on mobile.

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 26 April 2017 08:46:19PM 2 points [-]

it now looks like you're criticizing a reasonable post, at least on mobile

When I look at this on mobile I see:

This doesn't look confusing to me, but does it to you? Or do you see something else?

(If the layout makes it look like replies to deleted comments are replies to the post, that's a problem we should and can fix.)

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 08 February 2017 02:46:14AM 1 point [-]

"I reused the diet questions in my plan from MFA 2013 study on leafleting"

In my view, this study asked way too much. When you try to ask too much detail people drop out. Additionally, it asks about things like diet change, but to pick up on changes we should be comparing the experimental and control groups, not comparing one group with its (reported) earlier self.

What I'd like to see is just "do you eat meat" along with a few distractor questions:

  1. Are you religious?
  2. Is English your native language?
  3. Do you eat meat?
  4. Do you own a car?

Yes, we'd like to know way more detail than this, and in practice people are weird about how they use "meat", but the main issue here is getting enough responses to be able to see any difference at all between the two groups.

Comment author: Jeff_Kaufman 08 February 2017 02:36:55AM 1 point [-]

"A question to determine if they were leafleted or not, without directly asking."

People who were leafleted but ignored it and don't remember enough to answer this one accurately is a problem here.

What would you think of: at a college that allows students to mass pigeonhole directly, put experiment leaflets in odd mailboxes and control ones in even boxes. Then later put surveys in the boxes, with different links for odd and even boxes.

Instead of having the links be and it would be better for them all to look like so people don't know what's going on. You could generate two piles of follow-up links and use one for the odd boxes and the other for even. QR codes might be good to add so people have the option not to type.

View more: Next