Comment author: Ben_Todd 26 May 2017 04:36:39AM 2 points [-]

Hi Jon,

I would have liked to have seen a discussion of sensitivity to assumptions.

I agree - I think, however, you can justify the cost-effectiveness of 80k in multiple, semi-independent ways, which help to make the argument more robust:

https://80000hours.org/2016/12/has-80000-hours-justified-its-costs/

FWIW, I’m pretty dubious about the treatment of plan changes scored 10. The model implies each of those plan changes is worth >$500k...If a university student tells me they're going to "become a major advocate of effective causes" (sufficient for a score of 10), I wouldn't think that has the same expected value as a half million dollars given to AMF today.

Yes, we only weigh them at 10, rather than 40. However, here are some reasons the 500k figure might not be out of the question.

First, we care about the mean value, not the median or threshold. Although some of the 10s will probably have less impact than 500k to AMF now, some of them could have far more. For instance, there's reason to think GPP might have had impact equivalent to over $100m given to AMF. https://80000hours.org/2016/12/has-80000-hours-justified-its-costs/#global-priorities-project

You only need a small number of outliers to pull up the mean a great deal.

Less extremely, some of the 10s are likely to donate millions to charity within the next few years.

Second, most of the 10s are focused on xrisk and meta-charity. Personally, I think efforts in these causes are likely at least 5-fold more cost-effective than AMF, so they'd only need to donate a 100k to have as much impact as 500k to AMF.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 26 May 2017 08:58:13PM 0 points [-]

Fair point about outliers driving the mean. Does suggest that a cost-effectiveness estimate should just try to quantify those outliers directly instead of going through a translation.
E.g. if "some of the 10s are likely to donate millions to charity within the next few years", just estimate the value of that rather than assuming that giving will on average equal 10x GWWC's estimate for the value of a pledge.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 26 May 2017 12:07:32AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for sharing this analysis (and the broader project)!

Given the lengthy section on model limitations, I would have liked to have seen a discussion of sensitivity to assumptions. The one that stood out to me was the estimate for the value of a GWWC Pledge, which serves as a basis for all your calcs. While it certainly seems reasonable to use their estimate as a baseline, there’s inherently a lot of uncertainty in estimating a multi-decade donation stream and adjusting for counter-factuals, time discounting, and attrition.

FWIW, I’m pretty dubious about the treatment of plan changes scored 10. The model implies each of those plan changes is worth >$500k (again, adjusted for counterfactuals, time discounting, and attrition), which is an extremely high hurdle to meet. If a university student tells me they're going to "become a major advocate of effective causes" (sufficient for a score of 10), I wouldn't think that has the same expected value as a half million dollars given to AMF today.

Comment author: david_reinstein 24 May 2017 05:14:23PM 2 points [-]

Thank you. It sounds somewhat similar to some economics experiments involving charity that I have seen, but of course with a different goal in mind. I will look into this -- I am curious also about the evidence one might collect from such games, especially about which arguments people have found convincing, and which approaches have convinced people to choose the more effective charities.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 24 May 2017 09:22:27PM 1 point [-]

Yes, there’s definitely a quasi-experimental format, and we hope to use meta-analysis to draw lessons from all the different Giving Games we run in the field (which include a lot of natural variation). Separately, we’re also working with a number of academic researchers on experimental collaborations. Some of these involve studying the efficacy of the GG model, while others use the GG format as an experimental design to study other topics. You can find more about experimentation with GG here

Comment author: david_reinstein 20 May 2017 05:55:43PM 1 point [-]

Briefly, how do you define/describe 'Giving Games'?

Comment author: Jon_Behar 22 May 2017 09:05:40PM 1 point [-]

Giving Games are workshops where participants hear a brief introduction to effective giving, learn about a few pre-selected charities, discuss their relative merits, and then make a real money donation (with money typically provided by an outside source) to their favorite. More details here.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 08 August 2016 09:45:18PM 2 points [-]

I'm very excited about a fundraising campaign I recently started for the Giving Game project! Hitting our target will put the project on firm footing through the end of 2017. We've already found some new supporters, and I hope anyone looking to leverage their giving will check out our proposal.

I'm also feeling proud about a couple of nice recent hat-tips for GG. Gleb wrote a great blog post about using GG to talk to influencers at conferences about effective giving. And the survey of EA group organizers provided some really helpful data illustrating how important GG are to EA groups. They found that GG represent a significant portion of groups' activities, and groups chose GG funding as a favorite resource that could encourage them to do more outreach.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 02 August 2016 01:15:47AM 4 points [-]

This is great, thanks to everyone involved in making it happen!

I argued that supporting EA groups is a major leverage channel for Giving Game sponsors in my recently published fundraising appeal, and I think these survey results bear that out in two big ways.

1) In response to the question "How likely is it that your group would use any of the following outreach resources?", more groups (42) said they were "very likely" to use "funding for Giving Games" than any of the other nine options.

2) Who guessed this survey would show more EA chapters reported running events connected with "TLYCS or Giving Games" (50, with GG accounting for ~48-50) than GWWC (44), Animal rights/welfare (45), 80k (33), or rationality and critical thinking (32)? Not me! I know better than anyone that a lot of groups run GG, but I was still pretty shocked by these survey results. The only type of event more people ran was global poverty (65)… and of course most GG involve global poverty so groups may be counting the same events in both categories.

For those who don't know, the Giving Game Project has <1 full time employee (~ half my time). And since we do plenty of stuff that doesn't even involve EA chapters, EAs seem to be putting very few resources into a model that represents a disproportionate amount of what EA groups actually do and want to do more of. So if anyone's looking for a good way to support EA groups, supporting Giving Games is a highly leveraged opportunity to do so (while also supporting great charities and teaching people about better giving). Did I mention that we just started a fundraising campaign?

Comment author: ChrisCundy 01 August 2016 04:12:45AM 2 points [-]

Thanks for writing this up Gleb! I'm doing an EA Global workshop on pitching EA (though with a bit more focus on university groups), so I'd be interested to know if you have any idea how many people passed by your stall and didn't engage? Was it all of the attendees, or was it possible for attendees to bypass the stall?

Comment author: Jon_Behar 01 August 2016 10:04:36PM 1 point [-]

Chris, let me know if you have any questions about how university groups have utilized GG for outreach. Happy to share lessons learned and best practices.

Comment author: Gleb_T  (EA Profile) 01 August 2016 08:33:46PM *  5 points [-]

I will be happy to fund the campaign (just donated) and spread the word. Both in my experience, and based on the evidence provided above, Giving Games are a wonderful means of moving people who never heard about effective giving before into the direction of more effective giving.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 01 August 2016 10:01:55PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for your gift Gleb- and for sharing it! Your and Intentional Insights' partnership has been a big boost to the Giving Game Project and one of the main reasons why I'm so excited about our opportunity for growth and impact!

Comment author: JSWinchell 01 August 2016 07:34:25PM 3 points [-]

I'll be allotting a portion of my giving to funding GGs because, in my experience, the negative impact of some money going to ineffective charities is far outweighed by the positive impact of people noticeably changing their minds on the importance of effectiveness in giving.

Comment author: Jon_Behar 01 August 2016 08:23:21PM 2 points [-]

Thanks JS! Really appreciate your support!!! You and McGill EA have done a great job utilizing Giving Games in creative and high leverage ways. Your help will let us scale that success to new locations!

Comment author: Jon_Behar 25 July 2016 07:03:59PM 3 points [-]

Exciting news! Seems like a very positive step!

Really cool that you'll be more actively involved with CEA. Could you give some more clarity into what your role will be/how management responsibilities will be distributed? My naïve guess would be that you've got a big comparative advantage in a lot of areas, but not necessarily as a manager (particularly with lots of integration work coming up). I've got a hunch you've thought about replaceability issues in career choice, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on what you'll personally be focusing on and why.

View more: Next