3 ms·
When donors want something ineffective, isn't it EA's job to convince them to want something effective instead? If they are only holding their own events there
by lozenge 4y ago
When donors want something ineffective, isn't it EA's job to convince them to want something effective instead?
If they are only holding their own events there, it's a waste. If they're renting out the space, it's a distraction and a business masquerading as a charity.
- jefftk 4y ago> When donors want something ineffective, isn't it EA's job to convince them to want something effective instead? To a point, yes. On the other hand, it's good for people to be trying a range of things: it's a hedge against groupthink, opens up new areas that might turn out to be important, what most needs doing might change over time and it's good to be prepared, people don't all have the same beliefs about what matters or the same theories of change, diminishing returns from overinvesting in an area, etc. This means that while it's good to push back on proposals to understand how they're plausibly high impact, "that's not what I'd put my time or donations towards but I don't think it's bad that you're working on it" is a common view for EAs to have of other EAs' work. > If they are only holding their own events there, it's a waste. I do think this is what they're doing. How is it a waste?