Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey
Hide table of contents

Background

This report is about January to December 2022 in EA Estonia, corresponding to our last grant period (funding from the EA Infrastructure Fund for 1 FTE and group expenses).

Quick facts about Estonia: it has a population of 1.3 million and is placed both geographically and culturally between the Nordics and Eastern Europe. Our language has 14 noun cases, it is the birthplace of 10 unicorns, and we have the best mushroom scientists. Go figure.

In our national EA group, there are 23–30 people whom I would consider to be “highly engaged” (meaning they have spent more than 100 hours engaging with EA content, have developed career plans and have taken significant steps in pursuit of doing good). You could expect around 30 people to attend our largest community event (Figure 1) and our Slack channel has 50–60 active weekly members (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Attendees of our largest community event, the EA Estonia Summer Retreat. August 2022.

Figure 2. EA Estonia Slack statistics from its creation. Weekly active members have been oscillating between 40 and 65 throughout 2022. https://ibb.co/rHhxmfL

Group strategy

Here are the main metrics we used to evaluate our impact:

  1. Awareness: Number of people aware of the term “effective altruism” and EA Estonia.
    1. Activities:
      1. Introductory talks
      2. Direct outreach
      3. Social media outreach
  2. First engagement: Number of people who took action because of our outreach.
    1. Activities:
      1. Introductory course
      2. Cause-specific reading groups
  3. Career planning: Number of people that develop career plans based on EA principles that are well informed and well reasoned.
    1. Activities:
      1. Career course
  4. Taking action: Number of people taking significant action based on EA-informed career plans (e.g. starting full-time jobs, university degrees).
    1. Activities:
      1. 1-1 career calls
      2. Peer-mentoring
      3. Directly sharing opportunities

Concerns with this model:

  • The actual impact comes when people take action within high-impact jobs, which we currently don't measure.
  • We don't measure value drift or other kinds of decreased engagement after taking significant next steps.
  • This model doesn't prioritize targeting existing Highly Engaged EAs (HEAs) to have a higher impact.
  • This also doesn't include a more meta-level goal of keeping people engaged and interested while moving towards an HEA status. We do organize social events for this reason, however the impact of them is not quantified.

Regarless of these concerns, the main theory of change feels relatively straight-forward: (1) we find young altruistically-minded people who are unclear about their future career plans, then (2) we make them aware of the effective altruism movement and various high-impact career paths, and then (3) we prompt them to develop explicit career plans and encourage them to take action upon them.

Below I will go into more detail regarding the goals, activities and results of 2022 in two categories: (i) outreach and (ii) growing HEAs. I will end with a short conclusion and key takeaways for next year.

I Outreach

Goal: 5,000 new people who know what “effective altruism” means and that there is an active local group in Estonia. 

Actual: 20,776 people reached.

Activities:

  • Liina Salonen started working full-time as the Communictions Specialist in EA Estonia. 
    • Reached at least 20,000 people on Facebook with the Introductory Course social media campaign 
  • Student fair tabling. 
    • At least 155 people reached (played the Giving Game)

Goal: 10 lecturers mentioning EA Estonia

Actual: 1 lecturers reached

  1. Visited a philosophy lecture. Number of students: 20.
    • Talked about effective altruism and longtermism. Created a discussion with the lecturer. 
    • Suggested people sign up for our career course. Nobody responded.

Wrote to two other philosophy lecturers, but they either didn’t respond or referred me back to the person I already talked to. Dropped this goal.

Goal: 500 Number of new people reached via 17 workshops, talks or discussions

Actual: 593 people reached, 14 activities

  1. 4 workshops in Narva Language Lyceum. 
    • Replaced a history and society studies teacher for a day, teaching the. 8th, 10th, 7th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th grade. Didn’t mention EA concretely. Gave EA-esque talks about cause prioritization. This was in a Russian-majority area of Estonia, the students had a hard time understanding Estonian and there was a translator (another teacher) present.
    • Number of people reached: approx. 40–70 in total.
    • Impact: dubious. Next time I wouldn’t accept an invitation to talk to any grade under 10 and I would share a much more concrete actionable step for them to take after the talk.
  2. Career workshop with IT undergraduate students
    • Number of people reached: 4–10 in total.
    • Impact: uncertain
  3.  Talk about biorisks in collaboration with the Biology Student Society.
    • Number of people reached: 10–20 people. 
    • Impact: 2 people stayed for a discussion group. One person attended EAG San Francisco in an attempt to find her a thesis topic. Other than that, no obivous impact.
    • Next time I would want to form a more clear theory of change for the discusion group before starting it up. This time it felt unclear what we were trying to accomplish.
  4. Talk at a top high school in Estonia.
    • General talk about EA, more focused on careers. 
    • 20–30 people.
    • Impact: unclear.
  5. Talk at maths olympiad finals 
    • Number of people present: ~30.
    • 10 people responded with wanting more info on EA. 
    • Send books for 8 people (5x “The Precipice”, 3x “The Life You Can Save”).
    • Possible impact: an international math olympiad participant joined our Introductory Event.
  6. Debate society. 
    • Talk about EA as inspiration for debating. 
    • 5–15 people.
    • Impact: unclear
  7. Philosophy club. 2 events. 
    • Discussed open research questions about existential risks and cause prioritization. 
    • 4–8 attendees on each event. 
    • 3 people showed interest in applying for EA positions. One got to the third stage at becoming an office manager at EA Oxford. 
    • 1 person went to ask faculty for these events to be part of the official philosophy curriculum.
    • Note: I have not seen such quick and high excitement about EA before.
  8. FB Live. Career advice. 
    • Did a virtual talk via Facebook about career planning
    • 48 responded with “interested” or “going”.
    • Didn’t get much traction. A few people actually coming on and listening.
  9. "Noored Disainivad". Design hackathon for people aged 14–18. 
    • 20 people came and asked questions about EA and EA Estonia for 90 minutes.
    • Impact: dubious
  10. Introductory EA event. 
    • 15 new people participated.
    • Impact: 1-3 people signed up for our Introductory Course
  11. EA Estonia podcast
    • 389 listeners in total across platforms and episodes
    • During the student fair, heard at least one person say they've listened to our podcast
    • Most useful for creating collaborations between podcast guests and us. One guest became an contributor to the Food Innovation Summit (focused on alternative proteins), which the podcast host helped organize.
  12. Effective Giving Day online event
    • Only Anneta Targalt team + 1 person attended.

Goal: 50 people take next steps because of our outreach (e.g. participating in our Introductory Course; reading an EA book; scheduled a 1-1 with a board member) 

Actual: 73 people take next steps

  1. 21 participants in the Introductory Course in spring.
  2. 2 additional people attending our Career Course
  3. 3 people scheduling 1-1s with the board
  4. 2 people joining a biorisk discussion group
  5. 3 people joining our AI policy discussion group
  6. 1 person joining our AI safety discussion group
  7. 8 new people were sent an EA book (Maths olympiad finals)
  8. 33 participants in the Introductory Course in autumn

II Growing HEAs

Goal: 4 new members have a serious EA-aligned career plan

Actual: 9

  1. LS
    • Plan A before: Earning to give as a self-employed photographer. Maybe a Master’s degree.
    • Plan A after the introductory course. Documentary filmmaking. Self-reported scale of plan change: 10 / 10.
    • Major reason for plan change. Filling out the 80,000 Hours career plan worksheet, which she received during the Intro Course.
    • New plan B: Community development and communications.
      1. Talked through her career plans with Richard. Richard suggested she apply for an EAIF grant to be a communications manager for EA Estonia.
  2. RK
    • Plan before: Work on alternative proteins. Notice business opportunities and work towards starting a business.
    • Plan A after completing the 80K career course: Realized that non-profit entrepreneurship is also a thing. Plan to start a charity.
    • Plaan B. Work at an existing CE-incubated charity.
  3. KR
    • Plan A before: Work in the public or third sector in Estonia.
    • Plan A after completing the Introductory Course: Finish studies and work in operations at EA organizations.
  4. HV
    • Plan A before: Continue studying mathematics.
    • Plan A after completing the 80K career course. Pursue developing cheap clean energy through nuclear fusion (or other nuclear power).
  5. AV
    • Plan A after completing the 80K career course: Work through own cause-prioritization and see on from there.
  6. SJ
    • Plan A after completing the 80K career course: research into China-West geopolitical relations. 
  7. PJ
    • Plan A before: Work as a software engineer at non-EA organizations.
    • Plan A after engaging with EA: Work at EA-aligned organizations as a software engineer.
  8. KH
    • Partially influenced by conversation with Richard. 
    • Updated plans to work as a technical AGI safety researcher or start a startup for earning to give.
  9. RS
    • Had weekly check-in calls with Richard for a few months.
    • Small update and solidification of plans to do software engineering for high impact organizations in areas of mental health and improving indvidual decision making and critical thinking.

Goal: 4 members have taken significant steps on their career plans

Actual: 13

  1. LS
    1. Created a documentary film, which will be shown at a famous film festival in Estonia (PÖFF).
    2. Participated at a week-long documentary film-making workshop.
    3. Became a full-time employee at EA Estonia, wants to continue.
    4. Chatted to three other documentary film-makers at EA conferences: EAG SF, EAGx Berlin. 
  2. RK 
    1. Charity Entrepreneurship. Incubation Program participant in the Winter/Spring cohort of 2023.
    2. Food Innovation Summit program lead, volunteer.
  3. KR
    1. Operations internship at Effective Ventures. Got offered a permanent position after the internship.
      1. This was somewhat influenced by them attending the Introductory Course
  4. RS
    1. Got offered role as a senior front end developer at Metaculus.
      1. This was somewhat influenced by a long series of 1-1 mentoring calls discussing career plans and encouraging them to apply and take action
  5. TP
    1. Applied to many summer AI safety internships. 
      1. SERI MATS (33% chance of getting accepted), 
      2. AI safety internship (among the last 15 applicants out of 5–10), 
      3. Redwood Research
  6. SJ
    1. Applied to many summer internships: fp21, ACE, Charity Entrepreneurship reserach analyst.
  7. PJ
    1. Round 5/6 of EV Salesforce Admin position. 
  8. B
    1. Applyed to be an office manager at Oxford. Got to the third stage.
      1. This was in large part influence through them attending a discussion event for philosophy students, and by sharing them the 80K job board.
  9. LV
    1. ALLFED volunteer. 
  10. NB
    1. SERI MATS participant.
      1. There was little-to-no influence on our part here. Only possible influence through maintaining motivation to pursue the AI safety career path through social events and peer mentoring, but motivation was strong to begin with.
  11. KH
    1. SERI MATS participant
      1. There might have been some influence on this decision by having a 1-1 chat with them via mutual acquiantances, introducing the EA movement and philosophy and pointing to some resources.
  12. JJ
    1. Mental health navigator volunteer.
  13. JV
    1. Pursuing a patentable idea to store renewable energy
      1. There was a large influence on them here through having a 1-1 chat and introducing the idea and importance of comparing intervenetions in the climate change space.

Goal: Number of members who have taken or increased their GWWC pledge (Goal: 4)

Actual: 5

  1. HL. 10%
  2. JT. 10%
  3. IK. 10%
  4. KV. GWWC pledge.
  5. TT. GWWC pledge.

Additionally three people took the Try Giving pledge.

Conclusion

Looking at what prompted people to change their career plans and take action, it seems that most (>80%) of our impact in 2022 came from organizing Introductory and Career Courses. It seems to make sense to focus more narrowly on scaling these in the future.

It also seems that there is some potential in developing cause-specific groups and that philosophy students can get quickly excited about EA.

Acknowledgement

Just want to say that EA Estonia isn't just me. The activities outlined here wouldn't have been possible by our full-time communications lead Liina Salonen, volunteer core organizers Sille-Liis Männik, Simo Järvela, Piibe Nõmm, Merette Arula, and a crew of amazing volunteers.

46

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you, very informative! Impressive numbers for the new HEAs. Suggests there could be significant untapped potential in other Baltic countries, which is inspiring. 

Though the "Active members" number has remained roughly the same throughout 2022. Do you have any explanation why is that? Is there some sort of saturation? Would be interesting to know other year-on-year numbers also e.g. for HEAs, if you have them.

P.S. Coming the top mushroom hunter nation I respectfully nod about the mushroom scientists fact.

Thanks for the nice words!

Regarding the "active members" count, here are the stats:

  • That year, around 17 new people were added to the Slack from the Intro Course. Possibly 5-10 more.
  • Out of them, around 13 were engaged in activities after that
  • That means at least 13 other people had to become became less active during that time (not unreasonable)

So to increase activity on Slack, we'd either have to prevent people leaving or add people to Slack. We could:

  • assign each currently active person a mentor to keep them engaged
  • have a more obvious process of choosing activities to take part in
  • have more activities to take part in
  • think more about how to scale up our activities
  • invite people to Slack more liberally (also outside the Intro Course)

But another queston to ask is, whether activity on Slack should even be a metric to optimize for. I feel like it's okay to a have a static member count, as long you are creating lots of HEAs.

This touches a bit on the the question of what even is a national EA group: whether it's necessarily a big community of friends, or can it be a narrow attempt at getting more people working on top causes? I'm leaning more towards the latter lately.

PS! Looks like there's lots of collaboration to be done on the mushroom front :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not