Executive summary: This exploratory post outlines common pitfalls in using Importance–Tractability–Neglectedness (ITN) back-of-the-envelope calculations (BOTECs), arguing that while ITN can be valuable for comparing similar, well-defined problems, it is often misapplied in ways that produce misleadingly precise or inflated results—especially for broad, speculative, or structurally different causes—and offering recommendations for more careful, context-appropriate use or alternative approaches.
Key points:
Safe zone for ITN BOTECs: They work best for narrow, well-defined, and comparable problems; results become less reliable when problems are broad, speculative, loosely scoped, or structurally different.
Illusions of tractability: BOTECs may overestimate how much of a problem is solvable with available approaches, misuse the “100x tractability range” heuristic, or inflate scores by expanding problem boundaries (“cause-stuffing pump”).
Inflating neglectedness×importance: Results can be skewed by mismatched problem boundaries, narrow definitions of relevant investment, undercounting existing or past work, or using unrepresentative “slices” of investment data for comparisons.
Additional ITN-specific issues: Misapplied assumptions about diminishing returns, “two envelopes problem” dynamics, and reliance on single point estimates instead of distributions can all distort conclusions.
Precarious frameworks: Complex or untested quantitative models amplify biases and noise; authors should favor simpler setups, stress-test assumptions, and sanity-check results using alternative estimation methods.
Alternatives to ITN: In some cases, directly estimating intervention cost-effectiveness, exploring resource influx scenarios, or applying heuristic comparisons may yield more reliable prioritization guidance.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory post outlines common pitfalls in using Importance–Tractability–Neglectedness (ITN) back-of-the-envelope calculations (BOTECs), arguing that while ITN can be valuable for comparing similar, well-defined problems, it is often misapplied in ways that produce misleadingly precise or inflated results—especially for broad, speculative, or structurally different causes—and offering recommendations for more careful, context-appropriate use or alternative approaches.
Key points:
Safe zone for ITN BOTECs: They work best for narrow, well-defined, and comparable problems; results become less reliable when problems are broad, speculative, loosely scoped, or structurally different.
Illusions of tractability: BOTECs may overestimate how much of a problem is solvable with available approaches, misuse the “100x tractability range” heuristic, or inflate scores by expanding problem boundaries (“cause-stuffing pump”).
Inflating neglectedness×importance: Results can be skewed by mismatched problem boundaries, narrow definitions of relevant investment, undercounting existing or past work, or using unrepresentative “slices” of investment data for comparisons.
Additional ITN-specific issues: Misapplied assumptions about diminishing returns, “two envelopes problem” dynamics, and reliance on single point estimates instead of distributions can all distort conclusions.
Precarious frameworks: Complex or untested quantitative models amplify biases and noise; authors should favor simpler setups, stress-test assumptions, and sanity-check results using alternative estimation methods.
Alternatives to ITN: In some cases, directly estimating intervention cost-effectiveness, exploring resource influx scenarios, or applying heuristic comparisons may yield more reliable prioritization guidance.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.