william sorflaten

0 karmaJoined


Ah right! Yeah 'narrow' could do with some more clarification in the article I think (unless we're both missing something obvious!). 

Maybe - and I'm really not sure but based on the context - maybe 'narrow' is meant as in there are some more concrete issues within Kenya (e.g. certain diseases which constitute a large proportion of illness in the nation, whereas in CR it's more balanced because the country's managed to tackle the widespread but easily solved health issues). So it's narrower because there are clearer focal points? 

But I'm not sure and reckon the author's much better placed to answer if they see these comments! 

This made for a very interesting read, thank you very much and there are lots of good points here. 

It's a five-year old post now so not expecting a reply and some ideas/implementation will have changed, but from what I see, you proposed looking at:
1) 8 weeks for the advertisement of the job, upping it from 2 weeks

2) Ideally a 4-week work trial, upping it from 1-week

The process as you had it took 2 months from start to finish (with a 2 week advertisement and a 1 week work trial). That means that, at minimum, your proposals would last an additional 9 weeks (probably even longer given you'd have to sift through more candidates but keeping it conservative, at minimum 9 weeks). 

If the job were advertised on e.g. 1st February, then candidates couldn't expect a result for 17 weeks, ie. roughly mid-June for the successful candidates. 

At the same time, you seem to be expecting candidates to partake in a 4-week trial where, in this case at least, there was a 50% chance of not getting the job (2/4 received offers) - it's hard to see who this could possibly apply to, other than a very small number of people who are unemployed and privileged enough not to need to find a job ASAP (or would look at applying to a job in February and not need to have found a job before mid-June). I'm not sure what other group could accept this timeline other than semi-retired or retired people interested in going back into the workforce. 

For most people, it seems you'd be expecting them to quit their job (very few companies would let employees take 4 weeks out to potentially work at another company and then quit) for a 50/50 chance of getting employment. You note that maybe candidates could have the option of doing a 1-week or a 4-week trial, but those who could only do a week (which in itself is very difficult for employed people to do) would surely be at a disadvantage, with far less time to prove themselves or be as visible as those who do 4 weeks.

I completely get that it's vital for EA organisations to hire exceptional people and that hiring needs to be rigorous; I really like the concept of work trials (they work well for both sides provided they're compensated fairly), but it's hard to see how your proposed timeline would work for anyone other than a very small number of privileged people who, for whatever reason, don't have to work. I'd really like to see EA organisations being more respectful of candidates' timelines and mindful of how proposals need to balance finding the right candidate while also being mindful of a) inclusivity b) fairness to candidates c) efficient. 17 weeks from opening the ad to sending out offers, including 1-4 week work trials, doesn't seem to hit the right balance to me. 

Great article; wouldn't recommend the 'braintest' link though ( that you've put up - when you finish it all, you find out you only get the results if you pay £8...
All it told me was 'your IQ is better than the average!, pay to find out what it is!'

I don't even know if my IQ is better than average from that test, or if they just stroke people's ego and always say that to try and get people to pay. Anyway, no point doing the test unless you're prepared to pay £8 just as an FYI! 

Maybe I'm just a cheapskate but I wasn't prepared to do that and wish I knew before wasting my time on the test; interesting though it was, I saw little point given I didn't get any real answers!

Costa Rica's general level of health is far higher than Kenya's; for example, CR's (Costa Rica's) life expectancy is 77, the world's is 71, and Kenya's is 61. Kenya is also poorer than CR per person, meaning that government has fewer resources to spend per person such as in quality healthcare. 

If you were to donate £100 then, that £100 would go further in Kenya both because there would be easier gains (such as treating diseases in Kenya which typically go untreated, while they do get treated in CR) and also because that £100 converts to more spending power in a poorer country, e.g. Kenya rather than CR. An extreme example would be £100 goes far further in Haiti as compared to Norway owing to spending power. 

Hey NickLaing, this is a really interesting post, thank you! 

On this note, do you think that the army could be a significant obstacle to soaking beans then? If the army realised that there was this campaign that risked reducing the amount of charcoal bought per person, might they be considered a key obstacle to the chances of success e.g. not allowing bean-soaking campaigns in markets, not allowing it on the radio, etc.? 

I am very naive on how much control the Ugandan army has but just a thought in terms of factoring in likelihood of success, given they may pose a powerful obstacle as they have a clear interest in charcoal consumption going up, not down. 

I love your replies in the comments and openness to feedback/ideas/corrections. I will PM you out of interest re the garment technique you introduced if I may and also 100% agree with you - we can't assume that bean-soaking wouldn't work simply because it's not been done before, just as goes for any number of examples such as the one you make on on pond loaches (also interested to hear what work you are doing on this as that is a horrific way of slaughtering).