22

Please Take the 2018 Effective Altruism Survey!

The 2018 EA Survey has just been released! We hope that as many of you as possible take it via this link .   The survey takes about 10-20 minutes to complete, depending on how extensively you answer the questions. The annual EA Survey is conducted by Rethink Charity ,... Read More
Comment author: Tee 14 March 2018 04:38:41PM 18 points [-]

I interested Tee Barnett and Peter Hurford in adding sexual violence questions to the survey. Therefore sexual violence definitions need to be created.

Thanks for your dedication to this issue. I'm compelled to point out that that briefly speaking about a particular issue in an informal manner should not be seen as an endorsement on behalf of myself or Rethink Charity.

Comment author: Tee 15 March 2018 03:39:03PM 4 points [-]

In response to the comment that was deleted below, we do not intend to ignore this issue.

Comment author: Tee 14 March 2018 04:38:41PM 18 points [-]

I interested Tee Barnett and Peter Hurford in adding sexual violence questions to the survey. Therefore sexual violence definitions need to be created.

Thanks for your dedication to this issue. I'm compelled to point out that that briefly speaking about a particular issue in an informal manner should not be seen as an endorsement on behalf of myself or Rethink Charity.

Comment author: Ervin 09 March 2018 01:42:50AM 8 points [-]

Huh, given the odd funding splurges (things like a $60k EA Grant for developing a new version of Less Wrong for people to have fun intellectual discussions on, and I believe a similarly luxuriant amount to EA Geneva) I'm surprised an organization which does as much as Rethink Charity isn't already fully funded by the movement building fund. Does anyone know how much money got donated to that and where it's gone?

Comment author: Tee 12 March 2018 07:54:59PM *  6 points [-]

Ben West asked this question in the EA Facebook group late last year, and I believe EA Funds has updated since then: https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1606722932717391/

It's not clear what the optimal amount of funding for resurrecting LW should be, but according to the EA survey (run by Rethink), LW had been a top source for introducing people to EA until recently: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1h5/ea_survey_2017_series_how_do_people_get_into_ea/

Qualifying this by clarifying that I'm the ED of Development for Rethink Charity – I would say the lineup of projects offered by Rethink (SHIC, LEAN, RC Forward and Rethink Priorities, EA Survey) should be among the most competitive funding options for community building, especially considering our reach and impact on a comparatively low budget: https://rtcharity.org/monthly-donor-briefing-03-2018/

Comment author: Ervin 06 March 2018 08:42:50PM 6 points [-]

Do you/Rethink Charity need funding? I presume the EA Community fund is throwing a healthy amount of money your work?

Comment author: Tee 07 March 2018 05:38:24PM 4 points [-]

Thanks for asking Ervin. Were we to scale this project according to our estimates, we would need additional funding. There are also some small gaps in Rethink Charity operations that we'd like to fill. Talks are ongoing with CEA about additional funding either through their Grants or Funds programs

Comment author: number42 04 January 2018 07:25:31PM 1 point [-]

Wouldn't even as small a donation as a few hundred dollars translate into more bandwidth?

Comment author: Tee 04 January 2018 08:12:24PM *  3 points [-]

Absolutely - but re-Richenda's point about deliberations at a higher level, the Hub is one of many resources we provide, and we want to make sure every donation we receive is most impactful.

Even an earmarked donation for this purpose is not a straightforward proposition. Take the decision to potentially integrate with the CEA platform as a hypothetical. If we were to spend $300 - $1k tweaking the Hub, and then had to double back (likely to change the coding language) once we decided that linking up with the CEA platform is most effective for the community, we may have wasted considerable resources.

Comment author: Henry_Stanley 09 December 2017 03:57:31PM *  2 points [-]

Thanks for putting this together!

Given that most EA groups don't have websites, and that only 6 out of 10 of those that do said that the website was 'significantly useful', should we just get rid of websites altogether? Having a domain name that forwards to a Facebook group might be enough, and (beyond renewing the domain name) has basically no overhead at all.

Comment author: Tee 09 December 2017 07:25:10PM 1 point [-]

Richenda will have more insight on this than me, but my understanding is that when the qualitative report comes out, we will see that some of those who do have a website find it incredibly useful and it would absolutely be a disservice to pull the plug on that.

We're erring on the side of a 'targeted revision' of what we provide so that our services only go to those who are most effectively using them

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 17 November 2017 03:59:58PM 2 points [-]

Yep, that is an issue. One idea might be to look at the data for each referral source (e.g., how everyone who heard about the survey through Facebook heard about EA, then how everyone who heard about the survey though SlateStarCodex heard about EA, etc.).

Comment author: Tee 17 November 2017 05:13:09PM 2 points [-]

I agree, this is something we acknowledge multiple times in the post, and many times throughout the series. The level of rigor it would take to bypass this issue is difficult to reach.

This is also why the section where we see some overlap with Julia's survey is helpful.

6

EA Survey 2017 Series: How do People Get Into EA?

This is the eighth article in the EA Survey 2017 Series. You can find supporting documents at the bottom of this post, including previous EA surveys conducted by Rethink Charity , and an up-to-date list of articles in the series. Get notified of the latest posts in this series by... Read More
14

SHIC Workshop Experiment and Revised Impact Strategy 2018

By Tee Barnett and Baxter Bullock This post details our shift in priorities for the Students for High-Impact Charity (SHIC) program over time, and briefly outlines the revised methods of delivering this approach. We conclude the article by announcing a new SHIC workshop experiment slated to launch in early 2018.... Read More

View more: Next