Comment author: Jamie_Spurgeon 21 March 2018 04:37:42PM *  0 points [-]

Thanks for your feedback! I've passed this on to our development team.

Also on your point about reducing cognitive load, we found that some answers ended up too long if we included the full question, and if shortened they wouldn't accurately convey the meaning of the question. So we opted to leave them abbreviated.

Comment author: nonzerosum 24 March 2018 06:54:51PM 0 points [-]

Got it, thanks for passing it along and understood!

Comment author: nonzerosum 18 March 2018 08:40:05PM 0 points [-]

Also, I went through the quiz, got recommended a charity, clicked to donate, but then closed out at the page that asked for all my information.

I've donated to a few charities recently, and I believe that I would've donated (not large but not zero) if it let me do it with Google Pay so that I could've done it in ~5 seconds rather than 1 minute or so.

[See also this post that I just made on the forum:]

Comment author: nonzerosum 18 March 2018 08:34:28PM 0 points [-]


One possible improvement: To reduce the 'cognitive load' of doing the quiz, make it so that all of the choices e.g. "It is not very important" are replaced with "It is not very important that [x]" to reduce the need to read the whole question or re-reference the question when reminding yourself what each of the choices represent before selecting one.

Comment author: Khorton 07 December 2017 02:16:54PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: nonzerosum 08 December 2017 04:23:26AM 0 points [-]

Thanks, will do!

Comment author: nonzerosum 17 October 2017 06:48:23PM *  3 points [-]

Interesting post.

The first thought that came to my mind is related to the other post on this forum about psychedelics.

My interpretation is therapeutic psilocybin experiences can create a feeling of all being part of the same team / global interconnectedness. I wonder if this would lead to less tribalism. It seems like it very well may.

"In 6-month follow-up interviews, participants were asked: ‘Did this treatment work for you, and if so how?’ and responses were analysed for consistent themes (Watts et al. 2017). Of the 17 patients who endorsed the treatment’s effectiveness, all made reference to one particular mediating factor: a renewed sense of connection or connectedness. This factor was found to have three distinguishable aspects: connection to (1) self, (2) others and (3) the world in general (Watts et al. 2017)."

References via a friend.

Comment author: [deleted] 13 October 2017 05:13:17PM 5 points [-]

Thanks for the comment! I substantially disagree. The Project created some benefits, but (with low confidence) I don't think the costs were worth it. I'm seeing a lot of people note the benefits of the Project and conclude that the Project was net-positive, without engaging with the costs and/or counterfactuals.

Regarding the selection, I disagree that this was a substantial effect. But it's something we should discuss in person.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Oxford Prioritisation Project Review
Comment author: nonzerosum 16 October 2017 01:30:53AM 1 point [-]

The Project created some benefits, but (with low confidence) I don't think the costs were worth it.

I think it's worth separating the outcome with the expected value at the time the project was begun.

It can still have been a +EV decision to have done it based on the information you had at the time.

i.e. it can't be evaluated as not being worth it because it didn't turn out to be worth it, it can have been worth doing because the expected value at the time made it worth it, even if it ended up not being net-positive.

Comment author: nonzerosum 14 September 2017 10:12:05PM 0 points [-]

I don't think it's appropriate to include donations to ACE or GiveWell as 'cause prioritization.' I think ACE should be classed as animal welfare and GiveWell as global poverty.

My understanding is that cause prioritization is broad comparison research.

Cause prioritization looks at broad causes (e.g. migration, global warming, global health, life extension) in order to compare them, instead of examining individual charities within each cause (as has been traditional).

Comment author: remmelt  (EA Profile) 20 April 2017 11:51:05PM 20 points [-]

While this way of gauging feedback is far from perfect, our impression is that community feedback has been largely positive. Where we’ve received criticism it has mostly been around how we can improve the website and our communication about EA Funds as opposed to criticism about the core concept.

As much as I admire the care that has been put into EA Funds (e.g. the 'Why might you choose not to donate to this fund?' heading for each fund), this sentence came across as 'too easy' for me. To be honest, it made me wonder if the analysis was self-critical enough (I admit to having scanned it) as I'd be surprised if the trusted people you spoke with couldn't think of any significant risks. I also think 'largely positive' reception does not seem like a good indicator. If a person like Eliezer would stand out as the sole person in disagreement, that should give pause for thought.

Even though the article is an update, I'm somewhat concerned by that it goes little into possible long-term risks. One that seems especially important is the consequences of centralising fund allocation (mostly to managers connected to OP) to having a diversity of views and decentralised correction mechanisms within our community. Please let me know where you think I might have made mistakes/missed important aspects.

I especially want to refer to Rob Wiblin's earlier comment:

I love EA Funds, but my main concern is that as a community we are getting closer and closer to a single point of failure. If OPP reaches the wrong conclusion about something, there's now fewer independent donors forming their own views to correct them. This was already true because of how much people used the views of OPP and its staff to guide their own decisions.

We need some diversity (or outright randomness) in funding decisions for robustness.

Comment author: nonzerosum 21 April 2017 01:15:56AM 2 points [-]

Excellent point.

My suggestion for increasing robustness:

Diverse fund managers, and willingness to have funds for less-known causes. A high diversity of background/personal social networks amongst fund managers, and a willingness to have EA funds for causes not currently championed by OPP or other well known orgs in the EA-sphere could be a good way to increase robustness.

Do you agree? And what are your thoughts in general on increasing robustness?

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 07:40:21PM *  1 point [-]

What does an ideal fund manager look like?

(Many questions because I'm really excited and think this is fantastic, and am really glad you're doing it)

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 07:39:36PM 1 point [-]

What is the internal process for adding a new fund or manager? What happens after the form is submitted - is it a casual discussion amongst the team, or something else?

View more: Next