My main reaction (rather banal): I think we shouldn’t use an acronym like IBC! If this is something we think people should think about early in their time as an effective altruist, let’s stick to more obvious phrases like “how to prioritise causes”.
Personally, I think the term “important between-cause considerations” seems fairly clear in what it means, and seems to fill a useful role. I think an expanded version like “important considerations when trying to prioritise between causes” also seems fine, but if the concept is mentioned often the shorter version would be handy.
And I’d say we should avoid abbreviating it to IBC except in posts (like this one) that mention the term often and use the expanded form first—but in those posts, abbreviating it seems fine.
I think “how to prioritise causes” is a bit different. Specifically, I think that that’d include not just considerations about the causes themselves (IBCs), but also “methodological points” about how to approach the question of how to prioritise, such as:
“focus on the interventions within each cause that seem especially good”
“consider importance, tractability, and neglectedness”
“try sometimes taking a portfolio or multiplayer-thinking perspective”
“consider important between-cause considerations”
(That said, I think that that those “methodological points” are also important, and now realise that Jack’s “calls to action” might be similarly important in relation to those as in relation to IBCs.)
Probably fair! I’m certainly not wedded to that acronym continuing to exist.