2

Charity Science Effective Legacies

Below is an article Charity Science published in Quartz to promote our recently updated Effective Legacies campaign. It’s a good introduction to the concept for friends and relatives who may be interested in bequeathing to GiveWell’s top charities.   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Title: Want to maximize your legacy? Don’t leave any... Read More
Comment author: Sean_o_h 07 December 2016 01:17:00PM *  4 points [-]

As a representative of an org (CSER, and previously FHI) who has periodically posted updates on these orgs on the EA forum and previously LW, it's very helpful to hear opinions (both positive and negative) on desirability and frequency of updates. I would be grateful for more opinions while it's under discussion.

Thank you Michael for raising the question.

Comment author: Joey 08 December 2016 07:02:51PM 6 points [-]

Given all the interest in this (fairly unrelated to top post) topic I wonder if it makes sense to do a different post/survey on what would be the ideal posting frequency for EA orgs on the EA forum. I know CS would be very responsive to information on this and I suspect all the other EA orgs would be as well.

It also seems a bit hard to deal with criticism that falls along somewhat contradicting lines of a) you're not being transparent enough, I want more things like the monthly update and b) you're too spammy, I want to see less things like the monthly update. (I do know there is a difference between number of posts and given information, but limiting number of posts does make it harder).

11

Charity Science Health receives GiveWell Experimental grant and other updates

It's been awhile since we posted on the EA forum, and we have some big updates about our projects. Here is a short summary with links to more detailed explanations.   Charity Science Health Four months ago, Charity Science Health launched , aiming to use SMS reminders to increase vaccination... Read More
Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:03:56AM 3 points [-]

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:11:15AM *  3 points [-]
Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:03:56AM 3 points [-]

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:08:37AM *  4 points [-]
Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:03:56AM 3 points [-]

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:07:58AM 7 points [-]

Open Philanthropy hits based giving http://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/hits-based-giving

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:03:56AM 3 points [-]

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:05:59AM 5 points [-]

A bunch of stuff Michael Dickens has written. His quantitative model post came to mind first for me. http://effective-altruism.com/ea/xr/a_complete_quantitative_model_for_cause_selection/

Comment author: Joey 09 November 2016 01:03:56AM 3 points [-]

I think the difference between putting fairly minimal time into this (but still doing it) vs a lot of time seems fairly minimal. Suggestions as replies to this post.

Comment author: MichaelDickens  (EA Profile) 30 July 2016 01:42:45AM 6 points [-]

I noticed a contrast between the framing of a couple different parts of the survey results:

[T]he median donation was $333. Certainly good, [...]

It’s clear that EA has a significant problem with gender diversity

I think it would be more reasonable to say that the median donation is a "significant problem", and the gender ratio is suboptimal but I'm not terribly concerned about it. I believe we as a movement should generally be less concerned about how many of us are men and more concerned about how much people are donating.

Certainly many people have good reason for only donating a little, but on average, I'm sure we can donate more than $333, and we should encourage ourselves to do better.

Comment author: Joey 30 July 2016 05:51:59PM 2 points [-]

I agree. $333 seems pretty lame, I wonder what the median donation is of an average person in the same income/age spread and how far off of our numbers it really is. It's a fairly important question to ask. If the main good EA does is helping people pick better charities rather than increasing total donation amount that might suggest a change in outreach strategy.

Comment author: tomstocker 10 June 2016 06:32:35AM 3 points [-]

Yep. Would also be keep on the more comprehensive one 😊 well done though

Comment author: Joey 10 June 2016 02:29:48PM 1 point [-]

Thanks Tom! Yes we're hoping to have something more comprehensive up and running in the next few months, though I would recommend people use the primary service regardless. The final product is still great quality and there's a good chance it's sufficient even for complex estates.

View more: Next