I’d like to see each of the rationality/lw associated efforts to raise the sanity waterline written up in a more formalised in a more structured fashion.
Perhaps something like the following for each EA, GJP, FHI, etc etc because it’s not clear to me what the strategic reasons for a lot of the independent entities are.
The Democracy Centre recommends nine steps to plan advocacy campaigns based around a sequence of simple >questions. By answering each question, campaigners develop each element of their strategy:
• What do we want? (goals and objectives)
• Who can give it to us? (audiences)
• What do they need to hear? (messages)
• Who do they need to hear it from? (messengers)
• How do we get them to hear it? (delivery)
• What have we got? (resources; strengths)
• What do we need to develop? (challenges; gaps)
• How do we begin? (first steps)
• How will we know it’s working, or not working? (evaluation)
By experimenting with these processes and reflecting on how they’ve contributed to your campaign impact, you’ll get a >sense of what works best for your group.
I’d like to see each of the rationality/lw associated efforts to raise the sanity waterline written up in a more formalised in a more structured fashion.
Perhaps something like the following for each EA, GJP, FHI, etc etc because it’s not clear to me what the strategic reasons for a lot of the independent entities are.