Comment author: ea247 08 August 2018 10:12:31PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for posting this! I always love seeing people posting potential new areas of action and this certainly looks like it could be promising.

Comment author: Daniel_Eth 03 August 2018 08:14:46PM 4 points [-]

One easy way you could get a sample that's both broadly representative and also weights more involved EAs more is to make the survey available to everyone on the forum, but to weight all responses by the square root of the respondent's karma. Karma is obviously an imperfect proxy, but it seems much easier to get than people's donation histories, and it doesn't seem biased in any particular direction. The square root is so that the few people with the absolute highest karma don't completely dominate the survey.

Comment author: ea247 03 August 2018 08:27:12PM 8 points [-]

I think EA Forum karma isn't the best because a lot of the people who are particularly engaged in EA do not spend much time on the forum and instead focus on more action-relevant things for their org. The EA Forum will be biased towards people more interested in research and community related things as opposed to direct actions. For example, New Incentives is a very EA aligned org in direct poverty, but they spend most of their time doing cash transfers in Nigeria instead of posting on the forum.

To build on your idea though, I think forming some sort of index of involvement would get away from any one particular thing biasing the results. I think including karma in the index makes sense, along with length of involvement, hours per week involved in EA, percent donated, etc.

Comment author: Khorton 30 June 2018 09:40:40PM *  0 points [-]

This system seems to assume that all fun activities give you the same amount of fun. Is that what you mean?

Comment author: ea247 01 July 2018 12:51:48AM 4 points [-]

Fair point. I actually generally try to model it as points (out of ten) happier per hour, but I didn't want to go into tons of detail in the post. I definitely think you could make a much more complex model of maximizing fun than I do. Especially if you find that sort of activity fun!


How to have cost-effective fun

My husband Joey and I run a nonprofit, and we pay ourselves what we would make if the world’s wealth was entirely equally distributed. Often when people hear this they think that we live like austere monks, eating nothing but rice and beans, drinking only water, and working until we... Read More

“EA” doesn’t have a talent gap. Different causes have different gaps.

There’s been a lot of discussion and disagreement over whether EA has a talent or a money gap. Some people have been saying there’s not that large of a funding gap anymore and that people should be using their talent directly instead. On the other hand, others have been saying... Read More
Comment author: hollymorgan 31 January 2018 11:07:05PM 3 points [-]

What's your current Room For More Funding / how can we get updates on your current RFMF?

Comment author: ea247 02 February 2018 01:04:56AM 3 points [-]

Good question. We currently have $375k raised, and we have determined we could likely run a good quality study for less than originally estimated, so if we continue to run our operations at the same scale, we still have around $200k RFMF. However, there’s a decent probability that it will all be filled around July, so we are not actively seeking funding until after we get that sum confirmed one way or the other. We are recommending for those who can afford to do so to hold off until that time, and fill the gap if it does not get filled, or donate to their second choice if it does get filled. This of course depends on the urgency that the second choice needs funds and a lot of individual factors, so would depend on people’s personal circumstances.

Additionally, depending on how you take donor coordination into account, it still might make sense to donate now regardless, and we are indeed still accepting funds. More donations now will make it more likely that all of our RFMF is filled in July and make our organization more robust through being less reliant on a smaller number of large donors. Furthermore, it seems likely that other donation options are in a similar situation, it just might not be mentioned.

The best way to get the most up to date information is to contact us directly and ask for the latest.

In response to comment by ea247 on //
Comment author: MichaelPlant 16 January 2018 11:14:25PM 2 points [-]

On your original comparison to GW charities, I wouldn't just take GW's analysis as the canonic truth on the matter. Their CEA is pretty complicated, but ultimately they value charities based on how well they either 1. save lives or 2. increase consumption.

What you think about the value of saving lives is a philosophical question. I've written about this elsewhere so won't repeat myself. What you think about the value of increase consumption (SCI and GD) is probably an empirical question. If you value happiness then increasing consumption is a really bad way to increase aggregate happiness because of adaption and comparison effects (I discuss this in my EAG talk).

When I think about GW charities, I'm am highly sceptical they do much good at all. I know, highly controversial....

I say this because it opens the space to look at other things, like mental health and pain, both of which drug policy reform help.

However, even if you take GW's calcs at face value (I'm not sure exactly what that is) I think it would still be possible to build an EV calc for drug policy reform that rivals them. In this post I suggest a campaign for rescheduling psychedelics could spend £250 billion and be competitive with AMF. Milan's calcs are really helpful because it's important to start filling in the details of this analysis. In many ways, Milan's is more complete than mine, which is quite simple.

In response to comment by MichaelPlant on //
Comment author: ea247 17 January 2018 12:53:00AM *  2 points [-]

Fair point, that deworming and cash transfers increase consumption instead of directly increase well being, or at least that's what GiveWell's main analysis rests on. I do recall that the GD study actually did look at SWB and on page 4 ( it says that it increased a bunch of different happiness metrics as well (depression, stress, happiness and life satisfaction). However, if you only looked at that effect, GiveDirectly may not be that cost-effective. I haven't investigated it that much from that angle.

In terms of preventing infant mortality, it seems unlikely that losing a child wouldn't cause immense suffering to the parents, especially the mother. People often think that this wouldn't happen because people just "get used to" babies dying, but the odds that a child will die is actually quite low nowadays, even in the developing world. In India, where I have the most experience, it's measured in deaths per 1,000 live births, not 100, because it's that's rare. Additionally, because I don't think death is nearly as bad as DALYs would have it, I looked a lot into parental mourning before choosing SMS reminders. I don't have anything formal I wrote up I can point to (though I might at some point), but my research found that most parents, after the loss of a child, are depressed for around a year, with some tail ends of people who never appear to recover.

If it's the metrics issue that's leading to drug policy reform, I would recommend looking into preventing iron deficiency (through supplements or fortification) as an alternative. It's more evidence based and iron deficiency causes massive unhappiness. Anecdotally I've had friends who transformed from sad grumpy monsters into happy productive members of society after realizing they were deficient. Additionally there's evidence it increases income, increases IQ if taken during pregnancy, and decreases mortality in certain circumstances, so it's pretty robust no matter the metrics you care about.

Lastly, I'll admit that I haven't read all of your posts / critiques of AMF's effectiveness, so I'll have to go and do that :)

Comment author: ea247 16 January 2018 07:29:21PM 5 points [-]

This is fantastic! Thank you for writing this. I think that far too often people see a problem then say, "it's not tractable because I can't think of anything you can do about it" before they've even given it 10 minutes thought. And often causes require far more than 10 minutes thought to come up with some good potential solutions!

In response to comment by ea247 on //
Comment author: Milan_Griffes 15 January 2018 03:40:21AM *  2 points [-]

In response to comment by Milan_Griffes on //
Comment author: ea247 16 January 2018 06:38:00PM 2 points [-]

The reason why interventions like AR or x-risk are accepted by the EA movement (although not by all EAs) is that from a CEA perspective they do better than GiveWell top charities. The reason a lot of people still don't accept them as interventions though is because people discount based on evidence base differently, with some people taking non-evidence based CEAs more seriously than others. If drug policy does worse from a CEA perspective than GiveWell, AR and x-risk, and is worse from an evidence perspective than GiveWell charities, where is its advantage?

You could make a case that it's better from a metric perspective (ie preventing unhappiness through depression rather than DALYs which has issues with it, like over-valuing preventing death according to a lot of value systems), but deworming improves lives; it doesn't prevent death. Same with GiveDirectly.

For giving detailed feedback on the CEA, I unfortunately just don't have the energy to do the full thing, but if the final number still isn't enough to make me switch from GiveWell charities, it doesn't make sense to look more into the details. However, one thing that jumped out to me that others mentioned was the chance of the ballot coming through. I think looking up the historical rate of ballot initiatives being passed would be a good thing to look into.

In response to //
Comment author: ea247 15 January 2018 01:33:10AM 4 points [-]

I echo Michael Plant's sentiments. I'm glad you're quantifying the benefits of this potential intervention.

I started looking through the CEA and thought it seemed optimistic in various ways, but then I realized I could just look at the end number and see if, even without adjustments, it beat GiveWell recommended charities. Unfortunately it doesn't. You said that GiveWell's charities are in the range of hundreds of dollars per DALY and that didn't gel with my memory. I looked it up and AMF is around $1,965 per life saved, equivalent to 36 DALYs, so 1,965/36 = ~$54/DALY. SCI was $1,080 per life saved, so $1,080/36 = $30/DALY. GiveDirectly is $11,663/36=~$323/DALY, but the reason they recommend GiveDirectly is in part because it has a lower barrier to prove itself in evidence because it is a very "direct" intervention. (source: These numbers hold up roughly when you look at estimates from 2012 when they were still using DALYs.

Nevertheless, if you are considering where to donate, your best guess estimate is less cost-effective than GiveWell interventions. This is before it goes through the rigors of a GiveWell CEA as well, which would definitely have less optimistic numbers, especially given the low evidence base.

I'd like to end on a note that I think that posting new cause areas to the EA movement is scary because it's a critical minded bunch, so hats off to you for having the courage to do so. Keep trying; I commend you for it. Unfortunately, even if you defend it as well as it can be defended, it might not win compared to the existing top charities. However, if nobody does this work, no new causes will be "discovered", and so even if it doesn't win, this sort of work is very likely to be net good in expectation.

View more: Next