Thanks for this post! I think itās useful and clearly written.
Iāll split my thoughts into a few comments. (Some will partially repeat stuff we discussed in relation to your earlier draft.)
My main thoughts on this postās key ideas:
I think the concept of an IBC is a useful one
It of course overlaps somewhat with the concept of a crucial consideration (and also the only-used-by-me concept of a crucial question). But I think IBCs are a subset of crucial considerations that are worth having a specific term for.
I think youāve identified a good initial set of candidate IBCs
I agree that āto make the best choice on preferred cause area, [all] EAs should have at least a high-level understanding of various āImportant Between-Cause Considerationsā (IBCs)ā (emphasis added)
But (as you acknowledge) making the best choice on preferred cause areas isnāt our only or ultimate goal; we also have to at some point make decisions and take actions within a cause area. Given that, Iām not sure I agree itās worth every EA spending the time required to have even a high-level understanding of all IBCs
This is even if we make it easier to gain such an understanding
And this is just because of cases in which a personās position on one IBC indicates that a few specific IBCs are very unlikely to change their views (like in your example about population ethics and the level of extinction risk)
Basically, I hold a tentative version of objection 1
Iāll expand on my reasoning for this in another comment
But I think itās plausible that itās worth every EA spending the time required to have a high-level understanding all IBCs. And Iām confident that itād at least be worth increasing the portion of EAs doing that or something close to that (at least if we assume we find ways to reduce how much time that requires).
And I also very much endorse the idea that itād be valuable to make gaining a high-level understanding of IBCs easier. And I like your ideas for that.
I think the primary goal is to make it less time-consuming. But itād also be good to make it less effortful and more pleasant (including for people who arenāt nerdy philosopher/āecon/āmath types[1]), and to make it so that people understandings are more accurate, nuanced, and durable (i.e., to make misconceptions and forgetting less likely, and later, valid applications of the ideas more likely).
For people who want to followup on this (including but not limited to you), I think (some) posts tagged EA Education, (some) posts tagged EA Messaging, and the EA Virtual Programs are worth checking out
Thanks for this post! I think itās useful and clearly written.
Iāll split my thoughts into a few comments. (Some will partially repeat stuff we discussed in relation to your earlier draft.)
My main thoughts on this postās key ideas:
I think the concept of an IBC is a useful one
It of course overlaps somewhat with the concept of a crucial consideration (and also the only-used-by-me concept of a crucial question). But I think IBCs are a subset of crucial considerations that are worth having a specific term for.
I think youāve identified a good initial set of candidate IBCs
I agree that āto make the best choice on preferred cause area, [all] EAs should have at least a high-level understanding of various āImportant Between-Cause Considerationsā (IBCs)ā (emphasis added)
But (as you acknowledge) making the best choice on preferred cause areas isnāt our only or ultimate goal; we also have to at some point make decisions and take actions within a cause area. Given that, Iām not sure I agree itās worth every EA spending the time required to have even a high-level understanding of all IBCs
This is even if we make it easier to gain such an understanding
And this is just because of cases in which a personās position on one IBC indicates that a few specific IBCs are very unlikely to change their views (like in your example about population ethics and the level of extinction risk)
Basically, I hold a tentative version of objection 1
Iāll expand on my reasoning for this in another comment
But I think itās plausible that itās worth every EA spending the time required to have a high-level understanding all IBCs. And Iām confident that itād at least be worth increasing the portion of EAs doing that or something close to that (at least if we assume we find ways to reduce how much time that requires).
And I also very much endorse the idea that itād be valuable to make gaining a high-level understanding of IBCs easier. And I like your ideas for that.
I think the primary goal is to make it less time-consuming. But itād also be good to make it less effortful and more pleasant (including for people who arenāt nerdy philosopher/āecon/āmath types[1]), and to make it so that people understandings are more accurate, nuanced, and durable (i.e., to make misconceptions and forgetting less likely, and later, valid applications of the ideas more likely).
For people who want to followup on this (including but not limited to you), I think (some) posts tagged EA Education, (some) posts tagged EA Messaging, and the EA Virtual Programs are worth checking out
Also maybe this post by me: Suggestion: EAs should post more summaries and collections
[1] I donāt mean this as an insult. Iām definitely nerdy myself, and am at least sort-of a philosopher/āecon/āmath type.