$100 for the best article on efficient charty—the winner is …
Part of the Efficient Charity Article competition. Several people have written articles on efficient charity. The entries were:
The original criteria for the competition are listed here, but bascially the idea is to introduce the idea to a relatively smart newcomer without using jargon.
Various people gave opinions about which articles were best. For me, two articles in particular stood out as being excellent for a newomer. Those articles were:
and
articles.
I therefore declare them joint winners, and implore our kind sponsor Jsalvatier to split the prize between them evenly. Throwawayaccount_1 should also unmask his/her identity.
[I would also ask the winners to kindly not offer to donate the money to charity, but to actually take the prize money and spend it on something that they selfishly-want, such as ice-cream or movie tickets or some other luxury item. Establishing a norm of giving away prizes creates very bad incentives and will tend to decrease the degree to which prizes actually motivate people in the future]
Altruistic selfishness. I approve!
Okay, I admit it.
I’ve PMed jsalvatier with information on how to pay.
Some people said my essay wasn’t polished, or should have more internal LW links. These were both fair points. If someone is going to do something with these essays, please feel free to tell me how to make it better.
I think it’ll be best if you publish the text as a top-level post yourself, even without polish.
Confirmed.
I second the motion to make it a top-level. It’s the kind of post I’d love to link people to.
I’m flattered :-). Thanks again for taking the initiative to put the contest together. I agree with the suggestion that prizes for this sort of thing not be given away (and will not give my share away).
I submitted my article to jsalvatier for suggestions and he made some. I’ll edit my article in response to some of these shortly.
Does anybody have suggestions for websites/newspapers/magazines where we might submit these articles to publicize the points made therein more broadly?
Congrats! I thought yours was the best and I was hoping you’d win.
Good idea.
Yes, I will message you with details
Wait, you’re giving away an opportunity for a fun calibration game. I believe with 40% prob. the author is Yvain. I would also say 10% Alicorn, 5% Eliezer (it doesn’t match his style, there aren’t enough italics), and 45% someone else.
I wish I had read the article before reading this comment. It was a fantastic piece, but I read it with Yvain’s halo effect the entire time, and missed the chance to calibrate the way the author intended when he/she decided to use a throwaway.
Oh well. A great read is a great read.
I would estimate a probability <3% that the author is Alicorn; we talk on AIM often enough that I think I would have noticed the familiarity of her style if she had written it.
Having read the article before reading this comment, I developed the distinct impression that I was reading another of Yvain’s posts partway through. I would estimate 45% confidence that the author is Yvain, and 50% confidence that the author is someone else whose writing style I am not familiar with, so not Alicorn or Eliezer.
I’d also add a suggestion for Throwawayaccount_1′s article to be presented as a top-level post (or their permission for someone else to do that under another throwaway account; a title for the post will be needed in this case).
I like that not only must the the spending be selfish, it must serve your short-term interests, not just your long-term interests. Hyperbolic discounting ftw!
I ask the winners to PM or comment me some way of sending them money, PayPal, mailing address, etc. I also second the motion that you place the money in your mental account for spending on puppies and icecream.
On the other hand, it decreases the degree to which prizes are spent on ice-cream or movie tickets rather than charity. Evaluating a course of action means weighing the upsides against the downsides, not just listing a downside.
Yes but in reality the amounts concerned are good value for what they get.