Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: sixes_and_sevens 28 October 2014 10:41:02AM 3 points [-]

I would strongly suggest recanting the statement about AMF having "more money than they can use".

Part of the logic of donating to a single maximal-marginal-benefit charity is that your contribution works at the margin. You don't get to donate to a cancer charity and think "well, that wraps cancer up; now onto solving child abuse". In telling you about what "your money" is doing, AMF are being psychologically savvy, but they are also creating the illusion that your contribution is facilitating some sort of discrete satisfying chunk of work you can draw a line under.

Around here we like to think about charities as machines that take in money and spit out utility, but in the real world they're organisations with cash flows, long-term strategies and earmarked funds. The presence of such earmarked funds does not mean they have more money than they can use, and it would be awful if this notion got stuck in people's minds.

Comment author: peter_hurford 28 October 2014 03:30:18PM 7 points [-]

I agree that having earmarked funds does not imply AMF has more money than they can use, but (1) I don't think OP was saying that and (2) I do think AMF has more money than it can use.

Comment author: peter_hurford 25 October 2014 02:39:23AM 31 points [-]


Comment author: Yvain 12 October 2014 03:34:04AM 4 points [-]

Any particular implementation details on OCEAN? Exact same as last time?

Comment author: peter_hurford 13 October 2014 03:01:18PM 1 point [-]

Why not directly include the 10-item Big Five in the survey itself?

Comment author: Evan_Gaensbauer 08 October 2014 08:36:50PM *  1 point [-]

Gunnar_Zarncke also commented that I should at least turn my above comment into a post in Discussion. Before I do that, or if I go on to post it to Main. if the reception goes well enough, I'd like to strengthen my own post by including your experience in it. I mean, the point I made above seems to be making enough headway on the few things I did alone, and if the weight of your clout as a well-known effective altruist, and rationalist, is thrown behind it, I believe we could make even more traction in generating positive externalities by encouraging others.

I remember there was a 'Less Wrong as a social catalyst' thread several months ago we both posted in, found valuable, and got great receptions for the feedback we provided. I might mine the comments there for similar experiences, message some users, and see if they don't mind doing this. If you know of other friends, or peers, on Less Wrong, who have had a similar experience, I'd encourage you to get them on board as well. The more examples we can provide, of a more diverse base of users, the stronger case we can build. In doing so, I'd attribute you as a co-author/collaborator/provider of feedback when I make this a post in its own right.

Comment author: peter_hurford 09 October 2014 06:27:01AM 3 points [-]

Sounds good to me. I've wanted to write a "what EA/LW has done for me" post for awhile and may still do so.

Comment author: Evan_Gaensbauer 06 October 2014 10:11:49AM *  30 points [-]

On the suggestion of Gunnar_Zarncke, this comment has been transformed into a Discussion post.

Comment author: peter_hurford 06 October 2014 04:04:18PM 6 points [-]

I had a similar experience asking about my career choices.

Comment author: peter_hurford 03 October 2014 11:28:06PM 4 points [-]

Thanks for your hard work on putting this together! It's so inspiring to see everyone's profiles!

Comment author: peter_hurford 25 September 2014 05:25:40PM 4 points [-]

I like Julia Wise's thoughts in "Cheerfully".

(Personally I aim for donate 20%, invest 20%.)

Comment author: gjm 15 September 2014 11:30:00AM 11 points [-]

These are 10 different propositions. Fortunately I disagree with most of them so can upvote the whole bag with a clear conscience, but it would be better for this if you separated them out.

Comment author: peter_hurford 15 September 2014 02:49:43PM 3 points [-]

I agree with this meta-comment. Should I downvote it?

Comment author: JoshuaFox 08 September 2014 02:45:38PM 10 points [-]

Can someone point me to estimates given by Luke Muehlhauser and others as to MIRI's chances for success in its quest to ensure FAI? I recall some values (of course these were subjective probability estimates with large error bars) in some lesswrong.com post.

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 September 2014 03:37:54PM 3 points [-]
Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 30 August 2014 02:48:03PM *  2 points [-]

They asked curious questions :-)

I mainly relayed what blob had reported of his polyphasic sleep experiment during the Berlin meetup. And I tried to summarize what I knew about polyphasic sleep from the links and LW in general.

I also relayed that my second oldes son (8) by himself developed strongly segmented sleep with siesta during winter but fell back into mostly normal sleep after two weeks.

Comment author: peter_hurford 31 August 2014 02:07:22AM *  2 points [-]


I mainly relayed what blob had reported of his polyphasic sleep experiment during the Berlin meetup

Any link or description of that?

View more: Next