Great post, James! I think you described the 2 positions well.
Some notes:
I like to distinguish between implicit and explicit quantification (which is a matter of degree, not a binary). Whenever we say an intervention A is better, worse or as good as an intervention B, we are implicitly quantifying the goodness of interventions A and B, even if we do not use any numbers, or do any cost-effectiveness analyses.
In this sense, it is possible to quantify the effects of any intervention at least explicitly.
The optimal degree of explicit quantification can vary greatly. For each individual factor which influences the effects of an intervention, I think explicit quantification requires more time, but also leads to better results. So there is a trade-off:
Less quantitative methods allow us to cover more factors, but do not cover them as well as more quantitative ones.
More quantitative methods cover factors better, but cover fewer of them.
I believe it is imporant to have in mind the portfolio approach (or something similar to it) should apply to whole world, not just to the EA community, and definitely not just to each individual. I would say it makes sense for each individual to fully work on /​ donate to the areas whose marginal cost-effectiveness is higher, because those are the ones whose share in the global porfolio should be increased.
Great post, James! I think you described the 2 positions well.
Some notes:
I like to distinguish between implicit and explicit quantification (which is a matter of degree, not a binary). Whenever we say an intervention A is better, worse or as good as an intervention B, we are implicitly quantifying the goodness of interventions A and B, even if we do not use any numbers, or do any cost-effectiveness analyses.
In this sense, it is possible to quantify the effects of any intervention at least explicitly.
The optimal degree of explicit quantification can vary greatly. For each individual factor which influences the effects of an intervention, I think explicit quantification requires more time, but also leads to better results. So there is a trade-off:
Less quantitative methods allow us to cover more factors, but do not cover them as well as more quantitative ones.
More quantitative methods cover factors better, but cover fewer of them.
I believe it is imporant to have in mind the portfolio approach (or something similar to it) should apply to whole world, not just to the EA community, and definitely not just to each individual. I would say it makes sense for each individual to fully work on /​ donate to the areas whose marginal cost-effectiveness is higher, because those are the ones whose share in the global porfolio should be increased.