How do EA grantmakers take expert or peer opinions on decision-relevant claims into account? More precisely, if there’s some claim X that’s crucial to an EA grantmakers’ decision and probabilistic judgements from others are available on X (e.g. from experts) -- how do EA grantmakers tend to update on those judgements?
Motivation: I suspect that in these situations it’s common to just take some weighted average of the various credences and use that as one’s new probability estimate. I have some strong reasons to think that this is incompatible with bayesian updating (post coming soon).
From what I see, there are many different kinds of EA grantmakers, and they seem to be using different processes, especially in the longtermist vs neartermist space.
I don’t think there’s a single general answer to “how do grantmakers update on expert judgment”.
How do EA grantmakers take expert or peer opinions on decision-relevant claims into account? More precisely, if there’s some claim X that’s crucial to an EA grantmakers’ decision and probabilistic judgements from others are available on X (e.g. from experts) -- how do EA grantmakers tend to update on those judgements?
Motivation: I suspect that in these situations it’s common to just take some weighted average of the various credences and use that as one’s new probability estimate. I have some strong reasons to think that this is incompatible with bayesian updating (post coming soon).
Do you have a specific example in mind?
From what I see, there are many different kinds of EA grantmakers, and they seem to be using different processes, especially in the longtermist vs neartermist space.
I don’t think there’s a single general answer to “how do grantmakers update on expert judgment”.