Comment author: vollmer 25 April 2017 07:13:40AM *  9 points [-]

Some of those charities are developed-world charities and would likely be seen as ineffective by most EAs. However, he might not give to those charities if he was running an EA Fund (similar to how many GiveWell staff are donating to charities not recommended by GiveWell), or maybe multiple people could run the fund together.

One thing I like about Blattman's work is that he has done a lot of research on armed conflict and violence and how to prevent it (with high-quality RCTs). This area seems to be very neglected in EA:

http://www.poverty-action.org/study/peace-education-rural-liberia

http://www.poverty-action.org/study/ex-combatant-reintegration-liberia

EAs seem to focus on health most of the time (e.g. Charity Entrepreneurship almost exclusively evaluated health programs). There are lots of good reasons for focusing on health, and maybe the goal of EA is not to find all the best charities/programs but only some of them such that there's enough RFMF for the EA community as a whole. However, I'm skeptical and still think non-health approaches are very neglected in EA because:

1) There has been hardly any analysis of other program areas (e.g. so far I haven't seen any kind of back-of-the-envelope analysis focusing on peace and security, nor any kind of "fact post" on the EA forum, nor anything similar),

2) there might be a lot of additional funding available for such alternative approaches (by donors who tend to be more skeptical of GiveWell's health focus, or by donors whose funds are restricted in some way),

3) it would demonstrate to the outside world that EAs are really doing their homework instead of being easily satisfied with some easy-to-measure approaches, and this might accelerate EA movement growth and strengthen its impact and credibility in society at large (which could also increase total funding for top charities).

For these reasons, I would very much like someone like Chris Blattman to be involved with the EA Funds in some way (maybe not as a fund manager). Or some external review of GiveWell's work by someone like Blattman.

EDIT: Actually Open Phil wrote a bit about aid in fragile contexts: http://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/cause-reports/fragile-states

Comment author: vollmer 20 June 2017 01:59:38PM *  0 points [-]

I left a similar comment in GiveWell's June 2017 open thread – let's see what they say:

http://blog.givewell.org/2017/06/15/june-2017-open-thread/#comment-943609

Comment author: vollmer 12 June 2017 12:06:19PM 2 points [-]

Important follow-up to this post: Supportive scepticism in practice

Comment author: vollmer 11 May 2017 07:30:20PM *  5 points [-]

I agree with those concerns.

In addition, some people might perceive the "guide dogs vs. trachoma surgeries" example as ableist, or might think that EAs are suggesting that governments spend less on handicapped people and more on foreign aid. (This is a particularly significant issue in Germany, where there have been lots of protests by disability rights advocates against Singer, also more recently when he gave talks about EA.)

In fact, one of the top google hits for "guide dog vs trachoma surgery" is this:

The philosopher says funding should go toward prevention instead of guide-dog training. Activists for the blind, of course, disagree.

For these reasons, I suggest not using the guide dog example at all anymore.

The above article also makes the following, interesting point:

Many people are able to function in society at a much higher level than ever before because of service dogs and therapy dogs. You would think that’s a level of utility that would appeal to Singer, but he seems to have a blind spot of his own in that respect.

This suggests that both guide dogs and trachoma surgeries cause significant flow-through effects. All of these points combined might decrease the effectiveness difference from 1000x to something around 5x-50x (see also Why Charities Don't Differ Astronomically in Cost-Effectiveness).

Comment author: Peter_Hurford  (EA Profile) 25 April 2017 04:44:56AM *  3 points [-]

Another thing that would be encouraging would be if at least one of the Funds were not administered entirely by an Open Philanthropy Project staffer, and ideally an expert who doesn't benefit from the halo of "being an EA." For instance, Chris Blattman is a development economist with experience designing programs that don't just use but generate evidence on what works.

Chris Blattman has put together some of his principles on giving and says he personally ranks GiveDirectly #1, but otherwise believes the "means and end to human well being is good government and political rights and freedoms" and therefore gives to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Democratic National Committee, Planned Parenthood, the National Immigration Law Center, and the International Rescue Committee.

Comment author: vollmer 25 April 2017 07:13:40AM *  9 points [-]

Some of those charities are developed-world charities and would likely be seen as ineffective by most EAs. However, he might not give to those charities if he was running an EA Fund (similar to how many GiveWell staff are donating to charities not recommended by GiveWell), or maybe multiple people could run the fund together.

One thing I like about Blattman's work is that he has done a lot of research on armed conflict and violence and how to prevent it (with high-quality RCTs). This area seems to be very neglected in EA:

http://www.poverty-action.org/study/peace-education-rural-liberia

http://www.poverty-action.org/study/ex-combatant-reintegration-liberia

EAs seem to focus on health most of the time (e.g. Charity Entrepreneurship almost exclusively evaluated health programs). There are lots of good reasons for focusing on health, and maybe the goal of EA is not to find all the best charities/programs but only some of them such that there's enough RFMF for the EA community as a whole. However, I'm skeptical and still think non-health approaches are very neglected in EA because:

1) There has been hardly any analysis of other program areas (e.g. so far I haven't seen any kind of back-of-the-envelope analysis focusing on peace and security, nor any kind of "fact post" on the EA forum, nor anything similar),

2) there might be a lot of additional funding available for such alternative approaches (by donors who tend to be more skeptical of GiveWell's health focus, or by donors whose funds are restricted in some way),

3) it would demonstrate to the outside world that EAs are really doing their homework instead of being easily satisfied with some easy-to-measure approaches, and this might accelerate EA movement growth and strengthen its impact and credibility in society at large (which could also increase total funding for top charities).

For these reasons, I would very much like someone like Chris Blattman to be involved with the EA Funds in some way (maybe not as a fund manager). Or some external review of GiveWell's work by someone like Blattman.

EDIT: Actually Open Phil wrote a bit about aid in fragile contexts: http://www.openphilanthropy.org/research/cause-reports/fragile-states

Comment author: vollmer 21 April 2017 10:05:23AM *  6 points [-]

What percentage of funds was raised from people who are part of the EA community / identify as EAs, and what percentage of funds from people outside the community (e.g. Hacker News)?

(The launch post said that you'll be "seeing how the concept is received outside of the EA community" so it would be nice to learn about that, too.)

Comment author: vollmer 06 February 2017 01:11:44PM *  3 points [-]

GiveWell has made several big research-related grants, e.g. a $2M grant to IDinsight, part of which funds impact evaluations (which probably includes RCTs): http://www.givewell.org/charities/IDinsight/june-2016-grant

Comment author: vollmer 06 February 2017 12:31:44PM 2 points [-]

Given the diversity of ethical views in the EA movement, I think "EAs are not entirely altruistic" would be a more appropriate title than "EAs are not perfect utilitarians".

Comment author: vollmer 08 December 2016 01:01:38PM *  0 points [-]

(If EAs end up committing a significant proportion of the $100k (or even all of it), will Paul reduce his 'haircut' or not?)

Comment author: joshjacobson  (EA Profile) 07 October 2016 04:47:48PM 2 points [-]

I agree with Stefan here, as someone who has worked on political campaigns and marketing.

I find it very difficult to have much information without polling.

Most popular initiatives seem to be launched without such polling (but there will be exceptions on the national level).

Why should this matter? That ballots succeed without measuring their potential and optimizing against it doesn't mean anything.

The vote outcome will not only depend on individual opinion, but also a lot on the official recommendations by parliament and government (and the media).

Of course. Having polls can allow you to: - Help influence parliament and the government by polling (and releasing the polls if favorable) - Prepare for the change in public opinion / likelihood of success based on the recommendations that come out

Direct conversations with politicians and charities seem similarly helpful for informing framings/communications at much lower cost.

How so? As a charity worker and former political staffer I think I'd have minimal information on a ballot initiative for something like this that I hadn't done polling on. Why would their expertise be helpful? What information do they have that you don't? Campaigners would only know about issues on which they've researched voting behavior.

at much lower cost.

This seems unlikely. Door-to-door polling could be done by one person with a car/public transit in one day. Calling could make this even easier/quicker. Contact randomly selected, dispersed households, give them the same info they'll see on the ballot, and ask how they'd vote. Your sample size can be quite small and still be informative.

Comment author: vollmer 14 October 2016 07:45:33PM *  1 point [-]

This is very valuable input, thanks! In particular, I might have overestimated the cost of such polls. We'll definitely look into this further and will strongly consider doing such polls.

As a result of this thread, we're also in the process of obtaining data from a votematch tool. It's not representative but contains demographic data, so we will be able to extrapolate.

Why should this matter? That ballots succeed without measuring their potential and optimizing against it doesn't mean anything.

It does mean something, but I'm now 1) less confident in the belief that people don't do such polling, and 2) think that we have more reason to update away from that prior (how well-informed is it, really?).

Direct conversations with politicians and charities seem similarly helpful for informing framings/communications at much lower cost.

How so? As a charity worker and former political staffer I think I'd have minimal information on a ballot initiative for something like this that I hadn't done polling on. Why would their expertise be helpful? What information do they have that you don't? Campaigners would only know about issues on which they've researched voting behavior.

I think polls are mostly helpful for strategic decisions such as how many resources to invest into the vote campaign. For refining our communication strategy, observing the media coverage and updating our strategy based on that will be more useful. Politicians also have intuitions for how people will react to various points, e.g. for the kinds of arguments opponents will bring up, or whether a particular party will support the initiative. They might be able to give us recommendations for how to make sure the parliament recommends accepting the initiative. This is especially true in the frequently-debated question of foreign aid. It's not clear what a poll result like "45% plan to vote YES" means for the communication strategy.

I don't think the last point is decisive though, we should simply do both.

Comment author: vollmer 15 September 2016 07:03:45PM 1 point [-]

Based on our experience at Stiftung für Effektiven Altruismus (EAS), I fully agree with this post – thanks a lot for writing it!

View more: Next