I have recently been toying with a metaphor for vetting EA-relevant projects: that of a mountain climbing expedition. I’m curious if people find it interesting to hear more about it, because then I might turn it into a post.
The goal is to find the highest mountains and climb them, and a project proposal consists of a plan + an expedition team. To evaluate a plan, we evaluate
the map (Do we think the team perceives th territory accurately? Do we agree that the territory looks promising for finding large mountains? and
the route (Does the strategy look feasible?)
To evaluate a team, we evaluate
their navigational ability (Can they find & recognise mountains? Can they find & recognise crevasses, i.e. disvalue?)
their executive ability (Can they executive their plan well & adapt to surprising events? Can they go the distance?)
Curious to hear what people think. It’s got a bit of overlap with Cotton-Barratt’s Prospecting for Gold, but I think it might be sufficiently original.
I have recently been toying with a metaphor for vetting EA-relevant projects: that of a mountain climbing expedition. I’m curious if people find it interesting to hear more about it, because then I might turn it into a post.
The goal is to find the highest mountains and climb them, and a project proposal consists of a plan + an expedition team. To evaluate a plan, we evaluate
the map (Do we think the team perceives th territory accurately? Do we agree that the territory looks promising for finding large mountains? and
the route (Does the strategy look feasible?)
To evaluate a team, we evaluate
their navigational ability (Can they find & recognise mountains? Can they find & recognise crevasses, i.e. disvalue?)
their executive ability (Can they executive their plan well & adapt to surprising events? Can they go the distance?)
Curious to hear what people think. It’s got a bit of overlap with Cotton-Barratt’s Prospecting for Gold, but I think it might be sufficiently original.