Hide table of contents

Time estimate: 5-20 hours during 3-10 weeks

This is quite similar to hosting a smaller conference but a bit easier. For example, if one finds themselves at a university during May. It might be good to have an Effective Thesis day as people would be in the process of choosing a thesis topic. The EA group or individual would first advertise Effective Thesis by tabling with coffee in order to make people listen to an introduction of Effective Thesis  and then later on in the day have a lecture and/or a workshop on a university. One can develop this for a bunch of different organisations, such as Charity Entrepreneurship or GiveWell or any other brand-name day. 

Step by step guide

  1. Contact the local university or venue provider and ask if you can use their locations for a lecture and a discussion afterwards. Don't finalise the deal here however as you still need to make sure you get funding.
    1. Time estimate: 3-10 hours over 3-5 weeks
  2. Apply for funding from EA funds or CEA if you can't take the cost as a one-off event
    1. Time estimate: 1-3 hours over 1-3 weeks
  3. Plan out the event with a spokesperson from the org or someone who has done it before
    1. Time estimate 3-15 hours over 2-4 weeks
  4. Buy food and refreshments for the event and ensure that you have the requisite amount of volunteers.  If you don't have enough volunteers then ask around for help from EAs in your area.
    1. Time estimate: 1-4 hours over 1-3 weeks
  5. Market the event using whatever marketing device you found most successful so far. If you're uncertain we recommend tabling, which is setting up a table and giving people free coffee or snacks for you to introduce them to the conference and EA in general.

4

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This seems like the best starter project of the three you've posted. It seems fun and low-cost, and scales well from "just hanging out at a table with some pamphlets, talking to passers-by about EA" to more ambitious things like running a workshop or doing a talk/presentation for a group. Running a whole conference at a university sounds awesome, but I'd feel hesitant to start planning a big event without first getting some demonstrated interest from smaller events like this.

Websites and introductory material might be a great idea, but it's vague as described (what kind of websites and material do we need, exactly?), and in many cases it seems like existing websites (such as this very Forum) could handle hosting the desired content, unless there needs to be some interactive element to the page.

Overall, it's hard for me to vote on these as better or worse ideas in general -- some website projects would probably be great ideas while others might not be worthwhile. Also, people have different skills, so some groups might find creating a website easier than putting on a workshop, and others vice versa. All three of these seem like worthy projects for university groups to consider. I like how you provide step-by-step guides -- perhaps your site should also link to any writeups you can find from groups that have put on conferences, etc, in the past?

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
calebp
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig