DR

david_reinstein

Founder and Co-Director @ The Unjournal
4333 karmaJoined Working (15+ years)Monson, MA, USA
davidreinstein.org

Bio

Participation
2

See davidreinstein.org

I'm the Founder and Co-director of The Unjournal; We organize and fund public journal-independent feedback, rating, and evaluation of hosted papers and dynamically-presented research projects. We will focus on work that is highly relevant to global priorities (especially in economics, social science, and impact evaluation). We will encourage better research by making it easier for researchers to get feedback and credible ratings on their work.


Previously I was a Senior Economist at Rethink Priorities, and before that n Economics lecturer/professor for 15 years.

I'm  working to impact EA fundraising and marketing; see https://bit.ly/eamtt

And projects bridging EA, academia, and open science.. see bit.ly/eaprojects

My previous and ongoing research focuses on determinants and motivators of charitable giving (propensity, amounts, and 'to which cause?'), and drivers of/barriers to effective giving, as well as the impact of pro-social behavior and social preferences on market contexts.

Podcasts: "Found in the Struce" https://anchor.fm/david-reinstein

and the EA Forum podcast: https://anchor.fm/ea-forum-podcast (co-founder, regular reader)

Twitter: @givingtools

Posts
72

Sorted by New

Sequences
1

Unjournal: Pivotal Questions/Claims project + ~EA-funded research evaluation

Comments
921

Topic contributions
9

Project Idea: 'Cost to save a life' interactive calculator promotion


What about making and promoting a ‘how much does it cost to save a life’ quiz and calculator.

 This could be adjustable/customizable (in my country, around the world, of an infant/child/adult, counting ‘value added life years’ etc.) … and trying to make it go viral (or at least bacterial) as in the ‘how rich am I’ calculator? 


The case 

  1. People might really be interested in this… it’s super-compelling (a bit click-baity, maybe, but the payoff is not click bait)!
  2. May make some news headlines too (it’s an “easy story” for media people, asks a question people can engage with, etc. … ’how much does it cost to save a life? find out after the break!)
  3. if people do think it’s much cheaper than it is, as some studies suggest, it would probably be good to change this conception… to help us build a reality-based impact-based evidence-based community and society of donors
  4. similarly, it could get people thinking about ‘how to really measure impact’ --> consider EA-aligned evaluations more seriously

While GiveWell has a page with a lot of tech details, but it’s not compelling or interactive  in the way I suggest above, and I doubt  they market it heavily.

GWWC probably doesn't have the design/engineering time for this (not to mention refining this for accuracy and communication).  But if someone else (UX design, research support, IT) could do the legwork I think they might be very happy to host it. 

It could also mesh well with academic-linked research so I may have  some ‘Meta academic support ads’ funds that could work with this.
 

Tags/backlinks (~testing out this new feature) 
@GiveWell  @Giving What We Can
Projects I'd like to see 

EA Projects I'd Like to See 
 Idea: Curated database of quick-win tangible, attributable projects 

In case helpful, the EA Market Testing team (not active since August 2023) was trying to push some work in htis direction, as well as collaboration and knowledge-sharing between organizations. 

See our knowledge base (gitbook) and data analysis. (Caveat: it is not all SOTA in a marketing sense, and sometimes leaned a bit towards the academic/scientific approach to this). 

Happy to chat more if you're  interested. 

I think "an unsolved problem" could indicate several things. it could be

  1. We have evidence that all of the commonly tried approaches are ineffective, i.e., we have measured all of their effects and they are tightly bounded as being very small

  2. We have a lack of evidence, thus very wide credible intervals over the impact of each of the common approaches.

To me, the distinction is important. Do you agree?

You say above

meaningful reductions either have not been discovered yet or do not have substantial evidence in support

But even "do not have substantial evidence in support" could mean either of the above ... a lack of evidence, or strong evidence that the effects are close to zero. At least to my ears.

As for 'hedge this', I was referring to the paper not to the response, but I can check this again.

Some of this may be a coordination issue. I wanted to proactively schedule more meetings at EAG Connect, but I generally found fewer experienced/senior people at key orgs in the Swapcard relative to the bigger EAGs. And some that were there didn't seem responsive ... as it's free and low-cost, there may also be people that sign up and then don't find the time to commit,

Sorry, I think we meant the same thing. I had a brain freeze. I think my brain got confused by the term “offline."

Did you get the titles for offline and online reversed for the bullets at the top?

If this post is indeed cutting-edge and prominent, I would be more surprised by the fact that there are not more 'quant' people reporting on this than by the fact that more philosophers are not working on AI x-risk related issues.

Unjournal.org is collaborating with this initiative for our Pivotal Questions projects:

 Is Cultured Meat Commercially Viable? Unjournal’s first proposed ‘Pivotal Question’ (& request for feedback) and 

"How much do plant-based products substitute for animal products and improve welfare?" – An Unjournal Pivotal Question (update: added polls) 

Aiming to integrate this with some of the questions in our community here  

Feedback on these questions and operationalizations is highly appreciated.

Load more