• In praise of the toilet cubicle

    I’m at a pary, and the conversation has gone on too long, and an awkward silence falls. A strategem suggests itself: “I just need to go to the loo,” I say.

    And then the toilet cubicle is there for you. It’s not much - just a small, quiet, space where you can’t be seen and you’re not expected to do anything except sit (and excrete, but that’s beside the point). All that makes it an oasis of peace.

    Read on →

  • The universalizability of effective altruism

    The Boston Review’s symposium on effective altriusm is largely more of the usual complaints, and I think Singer’s response has most of it covered. However, there’s one particular strand of argument that I’d like to counter: the argument that effective altruism is in some way not universalizable.

    Read on →

  • The Screwtype Letters

    Author’s note:

    After a recent data breach at a large accountancy company, whose name the diligent reader can no doubt ferret out, I found the following set of emails buried in the archive. Though they seem exceedingly fantastical, I feel that they cannot be discounted entirely, and so I have endeavoured to have them published in the form you now see.

    Read on →

  • Collaborative and Combative discussions

    Have strong opinions, weakly held.

    – Paul Saffo

    I want to talk about one of those obvious-in-retrospect distinctions that I find very helpful: the distinction between collaborative and combative discussions.12

    I can’t point to any really clear distinguishing features between collaborative and a combative discussions, so in true 18th Century philosopher style, if I can’t define the difference I’ll just list a whole bunch of things that I associate with one or the other.

    1. I owe this to a sadly unpublished talk by Amanda MacAskill. 

    2. To be clear, I’m talking about discussions over matters of fact here. I doubt this is a useful distinction for discussions about the football! 

    Read on →

  • I'm now donation matching!

    Thanks to the folks at [Charity Science] I’m now helping out with donation matches. There’s a fair bit of evidence that this encourages people to give more1 - and if you’re planning to give already, it can be a good way to increase the impact of your donations!

    My first chunk is £2000 towards a fundraiser for AMF that’s being doubled by Allan Saldanha, and then doubled again by Charity Science, of which my contribution is part.

    Sadly, it’s closed now, so I can’t encourage you to donate, but if you’re a regular donor, you might consider participating in donation matches to make your contributions go a little bit further.

    1. See here for a positive take, and here for a somewhat more sceptical discussion. Regardless, the effect appears likely to at least be positive!