Some of our supporters are willing to sweeten the deal as well: if you haven't given us more than £1,000 before, then they'll match 1:1 a gift between £1,000 and £5,000.
Do donations to other projects within CEA count towards the £1,000 in previous donations limit? I've donated to GPP, but not GWWC.
This fundraiser has been promoted on the Effective Altruism Forum already, so you may find your questions answered on the thread:
http://effective-altruism.com/ea/hz/please_support_giving_what_we_can_this_spring/
http://effective-altruism.com/ea/j9/giving_what_we_can_needs_your_help/
I'll re-post this comment as well:
"If I was going to add another I think it would be
Talking to people who really disagree with you can represent a very enjoyable intellectual exploration if you approach it the right way. Detach yourself from your own opinions, circumstances and feelings and instead view the conversation as a neutral observer who was just encountering the debate for the first time. Appreciate the time the other person is putting into expressing their points. Reflect on how wrong most people have been throughout history and how hard it is to be confident about anything. Don't focus just yet on the consequences or social desirability of the different views being expressed - just evaluate how true they seem to be on their merits. Sometimes this perspective is described as 'being philosophical'."
The measures proposed in the comment are essentially imposing a quarantine, that is barring some people from coming into contact with some other people, including limits on their travel. It is a logical extension of food rules.
The argument is quite well received by the very reasonable facebook rationalists crowd. However many rationalists were quite clearly squicked out by the idea of quarantine when applied to lethal diseases ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/l3u/link_the_coming_plague/ ), yet talking about the minor inconvenience of colds suddenly everyone is a utilitarian and is willing to suspend certain supposedly sacred rights.
Hypothetically make the disease in question incurable and lethal, and instead of quarantine being even more obvious an answer since it has higher externialities, it becomes even less acceptable to propose.
Something funny is going on with people's moral reasoning here and I suspect it isn't peculiar to rationalists, but reflective of something in wider culture. Consider the difference in the acceptability of proposing quarantines when it came to Sars and Ebola.
When someone has an incurable and lethal respiratory illness, I think we do require them to stay in quarantine and this is broadly accepted. The reason this doesn't apply to HIV and other such diseases is that they are barely contagious.
The measures proposed in the comment are essentially imposing a quarantine, that is barring some people from coming into contact with some other people, including limits on their travel. It is a logical extension of food rules.
The argument is quite well received by the very reasonable facebook rationalists crowd. However many rationalists were quite clearly squicked out by the idea of quarantine when applied to lethal diseases ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/l3u/link_the_coming_plague/ ), yet talking about the minor inconvenience of colds suddenly everyone is a utilitarian and is willing to suspend certain supposedly sacred rights.
Hypothetically make the disease in question incurable and lethal, and instead of quarantine being even more obvious an answer since it has higher externialities, it becomes even less acceptable to propose.
Something funny is going on with people's moral reasoning here and I suspect it isn't peculiar to rationalists, but reflective of something in wider culture. Consider the difference in the acceptability of proposing quarantines when it came to Sars and Ebola.
Well I wasn't proposing a strict quarantine or limits on travel. Merely preventing people from coming into close contact with colleagues at work where the risk of contagion is highest, and requiring them to have the option to reschedule their (expensive) travel. People are already familiar and comfortable with regulations in workplaces and aviation.
If I were proposing a thoroughgoing quarantine, I expect people wouldn't be nearly as enthusiastic.
I think this ad makes LW and EA look cultish, because this ad sounds like hero worship and sexual innuendo. I was especially troubled to see this link on the EA Facebook page, where many potential/new EAs who don't know who Bostrom is, have lower weirdness tolerance, and have still-forming understanding of effective altruism, could see it.
Conscientious and discreet... Able to keep flexible hours (some days a lot of work, others not much)...Has a good personality 'fit' with Bostrom... Willing to do some tasks that are not high-status... Willing to help Bostrom with both his professional and personal life (to free up his attention)...
I showed this to a few smart young people, the type EAs want to reach out to, and they said it sounded "sketchy" "unprofessional" and "kind of like prostitution." Maybe it's totally fine and even attractive for LW, but I think EA leaders trying to recruit really need to be more thoughtful about their language. I think a different description should have been written up for that forum.
At the very least, it's very unconventional. Ads for personal assistants usually mention specific duties like "answering emails" and "preparing food," not just all-purpose service, so that people know what they are getting into.
tl:dr This ad sounds sketchy to me, and I really wish it wasn't linked on the EA Facebook group, where it can scare off new/potential EAs
Thanks for the feedback.
Note it was also the most popular post on the Facebook group (as measured by likes) in almost two weeks, so clearly some other members thought this was a sensible proposal.
I can see how it could come across as 'hero worship', except that Bostrom is indeed a widely-recognised world-leading academic at the highest ranked philosophy department in the world. There are sound reasons to be respectful of his work.
"sexual innuendo"
I can assure you the intended level of sexual innuendo in this ad is less than zero.
(Also - general question: why do people not always put this information on Worker Wanted ads, in a visible fashion? Not putting up this info seems to be the standard thing for non-hourly job postings, and I'm not sure why. It seems like one of the most important things.)
As we have not secured funding yet it would be premature to do either of these things. We can negotiate a salary later on in the process depending on the person's qualifications.
Has a good personality 'fit' with Bostrom
It would probably make sense to be more specific, so that potential applicants can decide whether they fit the role.
I think it'll be faster to get a sense of that from a personal conversation.
The point of writing an ad like that is to be appealing to people who would fit the job and not be appealing to people who wouldn't.
Exactly - if anything I am trying to make the job seem less appealing than it will be, so we attract only the right kind of person.
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I see that with 8 hours to go the target has been exceeded (£156,679 raised at the time of posting). Well done!
Yes, thanks so much to everyone who contributed! :)