Overall, not one of the stronger critiques that I’ve read.
The “how could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space” snippet struck me. I’m no expert in measurement, but the answer to this question seems to be similar to “how do you measure how extraverted a person is?” or “how do you measure the sum total of all economic activity in a country?” or “how do you measure media censorship?” The answer is that you do it carefully, with the use of tools/assessments, proxies, parametric estimating, etc.
There is plenty of research that basically involves asking people “Would you rather have A or B,” and with clever research design you really can measure how much people value various intangible things.[1] And I don’t even study or specialize in that area. So it stuck me as odd to have such an established set of solutions which weren’t even mentioned. How to Measure Anything is great, but there is also lots written about willingness to pay.
For anyone not familiar with that kind of research, a simplistic version would basically be asking people “Would you rather have an extra $100 each week or have a local art museum,” and by varying the numbers you can get an idea of what dollar value people put on that specific experience. For anyone familiar with the research, please forgive me for my vast simplifications.
So it stuck me as odd to have such an established set of solutions which weren’t even mentioned. How to Measure Anything is great, but there is also lots written about willingness to pay.
I agree the article isn’t particularly deep, but the plurality of possible measures arguably supports the central argument which appears to be that EA approaches to quantifying philanthropy isn’t the be all and end all.[1]Willingness to pay, for example, is a measure which works against arguments by Singer that money voluntarily donated to the Notre Dame roof would be better redirected to alleviating global suffering.
Overall, not one of the stronger critiques that I’ve read.
The “how could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space” snippet struck me. I’m no expert in measurement, but the answer to this question seems to be similar to “how do you measure how extraverted a person is?” or “how do you measure the sum total of all economic activity in a country?” or “how do you measure media censorship?” The answer is that you do it carefully, with the use of tools/assessments, proxies, parametric estimating, etc.
There is plenty of research that basically involves asking people “Would you rather have A or B,” and with clever research design you really can measure how much people value various intangible things.[1] And I don’t even study or specialize in that area. So it stuck me as odd to have such an established set of solutions which weren’t even mentioned. How to Measure Anything is great, but there is also lots written about willingness to pay.
For anyone not familiar with that kind of research, a simplistic version would basically be asking people “Would you rather have an extra $100 each week or have a local art museum,” and by varying the numbers you can get an idea of what dollar value people put on that specific experience. For anyone familiar with the research, please forgive me for my vast simplifications.
I agree the article isn’t particularly deep, but the plurality of possible measures arguably supports the central argument which appears to be that EA approaches to quantifying philanthropy isn’t the be all and end all.[1] Willingness to pay, for example, is a measure which works against arguments by Singer that money voluntarily donated to the Notre Dame roof would be better redirected to alleviating global suffering.
wait until she discovers how differently some EAs quantify different types of intervention!