Thanks for this post! I think it’s useful and clearly written.
I’ll 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 post’s 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 you’ve identified a good initial set of candidate IBCs
I agree that “to make the best choice on preferred cause area, [all] EAs should have at least a high-level understanding of various ‘Important Between-Cause Considerations’ (IBCs)” (emphasis added)
But (as you acknowledge) making the best choice on preferred cause areas isn’t our only or ultimate goal; we also have to at some point make decisions and take actions within a cause area. Given that, I’m not sure I agree it’s 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 person’s 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
I’ll expand on my reasoning for this in another comment
But I think it’s plausible that it’s worth every EA spending the time required to have a high-level understanding all IBCs. And I’m confident that it’d 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 it’d 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 it’d also be good to make it less effortful and more pleasant (including for people who aren’t nerdy philosopher/econ/math 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 it’s useful and clearly written.
I’ll 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 post’s 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 you’ve identified a good initial set of candidate IBCs
I agree that “to make the best choice on preferred cause area, [all] EAs should have at least a high-level understanding of various ‘Important Between-Cause Considerations’ (IBCs)” (emphasis added)
But (as you acknowledge) making the best choice on preferred cause areas isn’t our only or ultimate goal; we also have to at some point make decisions and take actions within a cause area. Given that, I’m not sure I agree it’s 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 person’s 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
I’ll expand on my reasoning for this in another comment
But I think it’s plausible that it’s worth every EA spending the time required to have a high-level understanding all IBCs. And I’m confident that it’d 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 it’d 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 it’d also be good to make it less effortful and more pleasant (including for people who aren’t nerdy philosopher/econ/math 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 don’t mean this as an insult. I’m definitely nerdy myself, and am at least sort-of a philosopher/econ/math type.