Great job organising this and posting your lessons learnt on the forum, guys! 

A couple of effective giving orgs, e.g., Doneer Effectief, have people who specialise in advising HNW individuals. There are also a few international initiatives I know of that keep a very low profile.

Thank you very much! Ricardo van Mildert isn’t on the forum but he was responsible for the programme :) 

Thanks!! It was a little goal of mine to get it out there before applications closed

Thank you! Ricardo isn’t on the forum but he worked his socks off to put this together

Thanks for taking the time to provide this context! 

I don't have a super strong view on which set of guiding principles is better - I just thought it was odd for them to be changed in this way. 

If pushed, I prefer the old set, and a significant part of that preference stems from the amount of jargon in the new set. My ideal would perhaps be a combination of the old set and the 2017 set.

Expanding our moral circle

We work to overcome our natural tendency to care most about those closest to us. This means taking seriously the interests of distant strangers, future generations, and nonhuman animals - anyone whose wellbeing we can affect through our choices. We continuously question the boundaries we place around moral consideration, and we're willing to help wherever we can do the most good, not just where helping feels most natural or comfortable.

Prioritisation

We do the hard work of choosing where to focus our limited time, money, and attention. This means being willing to say "this is good, but not the best use of marginal resources" - and actually following through, even when it means disappointing people or turning down appealing opportunities. We resist scope creep and don't let personal preferences override our considered judgments about where we can have the most impact.

Scientific mindset

We treat our beliefs as hypotheses to be tested rather than conclusions to be defended. This means actively seeking disconfirming evidence, updating based on data, and maintaining genuine uncertainty about what we don't yet know. We acknowledge the limits of our evidence, don't oversell our findings, and follow arguments wherever they lead - even when the conclusions are uncomfortable or threaten projects we care about.

Openness

We take unusual ideas seriously and are willing to consider approaches that seem weird or unconventional if the reasoning is sound. We default to transparency about our reasoning, funding, mistakes, and internal debates. We make our work easy to scrutinise and critique, remain accessible to people from different backgrounds, and share knowledge rather than hoarding it. We normalise admitting when we get things wrong and create cultures where people can acknowledge mistakes without fear, while still maintaining accountability.

Acting with integrity

We align our behaviour with our stated values. This means being honest even when it's costly, keeping our commitments, and treating people ethically regardless of their status or usefulness to our goals. How we conduct ourselves - especially toward those with less power - reflects our actual values more than our stated principles. We hold ourselves and our institutions to high standards of personal and professional conduct, recognising that being trustworthy is foundational to everything else.

This is a useful write-up, thanks for sharing! 

As I said in my last comment, I'd go to Zurich simply for the friends thing. 

Thoughts on Amsterdam: 

1. Probably the worst on this list for finding housing? New rental laws have restricted the market a lot. Once you find something you're golden though.
2. There's the 30% ruling which would significantly impact your donation abilities BUT I think maybe you live to close too the NL border to qualify?
3. I think it's better connected than you give it credit for. Easy trains to London, Paris, Brussels. Good night trains to Switzerland and Central Europe. And then Schiphol is one of the best-connected airports in Europe
4. You're probably already aware of this but since I don't think you mentioned it, Amsterdam has a pretty strong queer scene. Probably not on a par with Berlin but I'd estimate not far behind. 

There are a few Dutch EAs who have worked at quant firms and done E2G - let me know if you'd like an introduction. @Imma🔸 might also be interesting to chat with. She's a software engineer who moved from NL to CH for E2G reasons (IIRC) but then moved back. 

Random suggestion: Dunno if you've already got a master's degree but the UK has just expanded the number of universities that, if you have a degree from one of them, will give you access to their 'high potential individual' visa. AFAIK this is easier than getting sponsorship. Unfortunately, Ghent didn't quite make the cut, but lots of other EU ones did (including Amsterdam, which has a solid AI safety scene). So you could sample a new city, get a 1-year master's, and then you've gained the option of an easier move to London. 

P.S. Great to see you're coming to EAGxAmsterdam - hope you have a great time!

Thanks for clarifying! 

But at what level should that standardised set of outcome-related indicators operate? 

As you mention, we already have indicators for ultimate impact (QALYs, etc). And the indicators at the opposite end of the spectrum are pretty simple (completion rates, NPS, etc.). 

It feels like you're looking for indicators that occupy the space in between? Something like 80k's old DIPY metric or AAC's ICAP?

I thiiiiink both organisations tried these metrics and then discontinued them because they weren't so useful? 

I notice the 'guiding principles' in the introductory essay on effectivealtruism.org have been changed. It used to list: prioritisation, impartial altruism, open truthseeking, and a collaborative spirit. It now lists: scope sensitivity, impartiality, scout mindset, and recognition of trade-offs.  

As far as I'm aware, this change wasn't signalled. I understand lots of work has been recently done to improve the messaging on effectivealtruism.org -- which is great! -- but it feels a bit weird for 'guiding principles' to have been changed without any discussion or notice. 

As far as I understand, back in 2017 a set of principles were chosen through a somewhat deliberative process, and then organisations were invited to endorse them. This feels like a more appropriate process for such a change.