Exciting! Great if you can connect and support impact-focused freelancers to achieve their goals.

As someone who may be looking for freelance support in the next few weeks/months, I'm wondering what I gain by posting or using the directory here, rather than other (not-altruism-focused) platforms like Fiverr, Upwork, etc?

Productive conference meetup format for 5-15 people in 30-60 minutes

I ran an impromptu meetup at a conference this weekend, where 2 of the ~8 attendees told me that they found this an unusually useful/productive format and encouraged me to share it as an EA Forum shortform. So here I am, obliging them:

• Intros… but actually useful
  • Name
  • Brief background or interest in the topic
  • 1 thing you could possibly help others in this group with
  • 1 thing you hope others in this group could help you with
  • NOTE: I will ask you to act on these imminently so you need to pay attention, take notes etc
  • [Facilitator starts and demonstrates by example]
• Round of any quick wins: anything you heard where someone asked for some help and you think you can help quickly, e.g. a resource, idea, offer? Say so now!
• Round of quick requests: Anything where anyone would like to arrange a 1:1 later with someone else here, or request anything else?
• If 15+ minutes remaining:
  • Brainstorm whole-group discussion topics for the remaining time. Quickly gather in 1-5 topic ideas in less than 5 minutes.
  • Show of hands voting for each of the proposed topics.
  • Discuss most popular topics for 8-15 minutes each. (It might just be one topic)
• If less than 15 minutes remaining:
  • Quickly pick one topic for group discussion yourself.
  • Or just finish early? People can stay and chat if they like.

Note: the facilitator needs to actually facilitate, including cutting off lengthy intros or any discussions that get started during the ‘quick wins’ and ‘quick requests’ rounds. If you have a group over 10 you might need to divide into subgroups for the discussion part.

I think we had around 3 quick wins, 3 quick requests, and briefly discussed 2 topics in our 45 minute session.

Good news if true! Thanks for sharing.

Some other guesses/hypotheses of things that may contribute to positive mental health:

• "For people who feel pulled by all the important problems out there", EA's focus on tractability, cost-effectiveness, and actually doing things that make a difference, may mean that for some people it's a much more hopeful, optimistic, solutions-oriented take than what they're used to. I remember speaking to a Leaf alum (i.e. a teenager) who found Leaf inspiring/motivating in contrast to the climate change doom and gloom that they were usually surrounded by.
• There are a bunch of mental health and wellbeing services out there specifically for EAs. Maybe this is just another opportunity to engage with that sort of support that someone might otherwise have skipped or never had access to. (Although my sense is that these services have developed/spread/grown since the 2022 survey.)
• More generally, plausible mental health / wellbeing discussion and consideration may be more part of the environment, culture, and social norms than they have had in other contexts. A different topic, but I had a similar thing for productivity when I first became more involved with EA -- I was around 21 and had graduated from a top university, but still I'd never really encountered people discussing ways to become more productive and efficient generally. I can imagine a similar thing happening for mental health. (I can also imagine people encounter 'wellness' programs in e.g. corporate environments where they are based on vibes rather than evidence, or otherwise clearly seem to be shallow, hollow, or ineffective, and then the more evidence-based approach within EA makes it resonate more. I think something a little bit like this did happen to me.)
• This is hinted at with "wanting to be impactful", but all the standard stuff in the 80k career guide about fulfilling careers etc.

(Here I'm just assuming the premise is true. I do feel a bit sceptical due to the survey response bias thing. But I don't have counterevidence beyond anecdotes and intuition.)

(Ironically, I suppose the title -- "We don't have evidence that the best charities are over 1000x more cost effective than the average" -- is also an overly confident claim, where a question might have been better, unless the original poster had carried out an exhaustive search for relevant evidence)

I agree with other comments that the 80k article is the place to go.

But I also want to specifically praise and thank the original poster for (1) noticing an important seeming empirical claim being bandied around (2) noticing that the evidence being used seemed insufficient (3) sharing that potentially important discovery.

(For what it's worth, before the 80k article, I also worried that people in the EA community were excessively confident in similar claims.)

Also, even if charities differ significantly on a specific, narrow metric, they may differ less substantially in terms of various indirect and knock on effects (which also matter). See https://reducing-suffering.org/why-charities-dont-differ-astronomically-in-cost-effectiveness/

I don't think our capacity has been as stretched as LTFF. We get fewer applications.

Id guess the median application wait time is around 4 weeks.

It feels somewhat uninformative to share a mean, because sometimes there are substantial delays due to:

• applicants themselves being unresponsive to our own emails or saying they need several weeks to send us some follow up info
• Logistical complexities on some specific applications.

I haven't looked these things up though; let me know if you're keen for a more precise answer.

As for applicant questions: likewise, I personally don't get many of these. I answer them when I do, even if sometimes more briefly than I'd like to be able to. I haven't asked Harri his experience though.

(I'm intrigued to see these things described as "the value proposition to funding applicants". I would have seen the value proposition more as like 'funding for EA infrastructure projects, even for small amounts', with these other elements more as secondary parts of the 'experience'. Of course, this still matters though.)

Sounds exciting!

It’s really about exploring what kinds of hurdles might come up in this 80/20 approach — for example, getting a clearer picture of where enough high-quality videos already exist and where important content is still missing. But also more generally: what else might turn out to be more complicated than expected? The other key question is: do people like and actually use the platform?

Makes sense to me. But this one...

And ideally, does it help move people from ambition to action — for example, by inspiring them to donate, explore new career paths, or volunteer their time to help solve the problems discussed?

...seems very hard to notice/track in a pilot. (I'd be very interested if you have ideas how to do this!)

Happy to keep you in the loop on which videos I find or plan to include — I’d really appreciate your thoughts or suggestions at that stage!

Sounds great, thank you! Feel free to DM me on the EA Forum or email jamie.a.harris94 [at] gmail.com

And also: if you’ve created any content yourself that might be a good fit, feel free to share!

I'm afraid it's a bit too bespoke to the exact narrative/experience of the course to be worth sharing more widely. (Usually 2-8 minute videos summarising key concepts or insights and explaining them in the context of a subject-specific course for 15-18 year olds, e.g. this one.)

Sounds very cool! I think video courses is a great idea, since I expect that a lot of people (myself included) at least sometimes find it a lot easier and more fun to watch videos than to read things.

Quite intrigued which videos you intend to use; when I've created EA-relevant online courses in the past, a dearth of high-quality, relevant videos has been a bottleneck. I ended up creating my own content/videos. (There are sometimes things like EA Global talks, but they often aren't sufficiently introductory and broad, e.g. they'll be about a specific intervention, org, or argument rather than about a cause area or topic.)

What uncertainties are you testing with the pilot? Is it mainly about demand/sign ups/views?

This was very cool. Extremely creative! And emotive. 168k views is impressive. Thanks for putting in the work into this in your spare time!

I'd be so curious to know if (m)any people donated to ACE as a result! (You could maybe ask ACE if they had recent donations citing your channel name or 'Youtube video's or some such as how they heard). Also wondering if you got (m)any new Patreon subscribers as a result

Social Movement Mobilization: Literature Review

Collective Identity and Community Building

Core concepts: Shared identity formation, in-group solidarity, boundary maintenance

Key findings:

• Strong collective identities significantly predict sustained participation
• Communities that balance inclusivity with distinctive identity markers show higher retention
• Regular face-to-face interaction strengthens commitment beyond digital-only engagement

Evidence strength: Strong. Multiple longitudinal studies across diverse movements consistently show correlation between identity strength and participation persistence.

Notable research:

• Polletta and Jasper's (2001) review found identity processes central to all stages of activism
• Snow and McAdam (2000) documented how "identity alignment" precedes sustained activism
• Blee's (2012) ethnographic studies showed how white supremacist groups use identity work to maintain commitment despite social stigma

Resource Mobilization

Core concepts: Organizational infrastructure, resource acquisition, professional vs. grassroots structures

Key findings:

• Professionalized organizations excel at policy advocacy but often struggle with deep engagement
• Hybrid structures combining professional leadership with grassroots participation demonstrate better long-term mobilization
• Material and non-material resources both matter, but emotional resources become increasingly important for sustained involvement

Evidence strength: Moderate to strong. Comparative organizational studies show clear patterns, though causal mechanisms remain debated.

Notable research:

• McCarthy and Zald's (1977) foundational work showed how resource availability shapes movement trajectories
• Staggenborg's (1988) comparative study found professionalized organizations survived longer but mobilized fewer committed activists
• Ganz's (2000) research on the United Farm Workers demonstrated how strategic capacity depends on leadership structures and insider/outsider combinations

Framing and Messaging

Core concepts: Diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing; frame resonance; frame alignment

Key findings:

• Single-issue framing simplifies messaging but limits identity commitment
• Holistic frames connecting multiple issues create stronger commitment but reach narrower audiences
• Progressive frame alignment over time builds deeper engagement than immediate ideological purity tests

Evidence strength: Moderate. Experimental and observational studies show consistent effects, though context-specific factors introduce variability.

Notable research:

• Benford and Snow's (2000) synthesis showed how framing shapes mobilization potential
• Bail's (2012) computational analysis demonstrated how emotional resonance predicts frame adoption
• Jasper's (2011) work on moral emotions highlighted how different framing strategies activate different types of commitment

Biographical Availability and Networks

Core concepts: Social ties, movement socialization, biographical constraints

Key findings:

• Pre-existing network ties remain the strongest predictor of initial movement participation
• Sustained engagement correlates with integration into movement-related social networks
• The "biographical availability" (free time, minimal competing commitments) affects participation levels

Evidence strength: Very strong. Consistent findings across movements, methodologies, and time periods.

Notable research:

• McAdam's (1986) study of Freedom Summer showed network ties predicted high-risk activism
• Passy and Giugni's (2001) work demonstrated how networks both recruit and socialize members
• Corrigall-Brown's (2012) longitudinal research identified how life transitions affect continued participation

Emotional Dimensions

Core concepts: Moral shock, collective emotions, emotional energy, affective commitment

Key findings:

• "Moral shocks" drive initial mobilization but rarely sustain long-term commitment
• Positive emotions from collective action (solidarity, hope, pride) better predict sustained engagement
• Groups that provide emotional rewards alongside instrumental goals show higher retention

Evidence strength: Strong and growing. Initially understudied, emotional factors now recognized as crucial through both qualitative and quantitative research.

Notable research:

• Jasper's (2018) work on "the emotions of protest" showed how different emotional processes operate at different stages
• Collins' (2001) interaction ritual theory demonstrated how emotional energy from successful collective actions fuels continued participation
• Goodwin et al.'s (2009) edited volume synthesized evidence on how emotional processes function in movements

Application to Your Colleague's Concerns

Your colleague's observations align with several empirical findings:

1. On professional boundaries: The research strongly supports the importance of social bonds and informal connections. Corrigall-Brown found that when activism becomes integrated into participants' broader social lives, persistence increases significantly. Their suggestion of physical community spaces aligns with findings from Haunss and Leach (2007) on the importance of "free spaces" for movement culture.
2. On single-issue communication: The framing literature confirms the trade-off they identify. Snow and Benford's work on "frame bridging" suggests organizations might develop ways to connect animal issues to other concerns without requiring complete ideological alignment. Their idea of different "flavors" of thought leadership is supported by research on "multi-organizational fields" (Curtis and Zurcher, 1973).

Recommendations Based on Evidence

1. Hybrid engagement models: The strongest evidence supports creating tiered engagement opportunities with different commitment levels—from single-petition signers to core organizers—with pathways between levels.
2. Community-building infrastructure: Physical spaces, regular gatherings, and shared rituals consistently show high impact on commitment. Putnam's (2000) work on social capital confirms the value of their community space idea.
3. Frame diversification: Research supports developing multiple frames for different audiences while maintaining coalition coherence, similar to their suggestion about diverse thought leaders.
4. Emotional cultivation: Strong evidence indicates that organizations should intentionally cultivate positive emotional experiences alongside instrumental campaigns.
5. Life-course integration: Help supporters integrate their animal advocacy with other life domains rather than treating it as a separate activity.