Quick rambly comment from my side (because I didnât expect this to be spread outside of the publication and wasnât aware of timelines :))
Most of the writing is done by Dirk-Jan. I gave input and part of this followed from a conversation we had on stage during EAGxAmsterdam.
I think Dirk-Jan is a rare example of an experienced professional from the ODE field who is willing to engage critically with EA ideas in good faith, and I am very happy we started this discussion :) As a community, I think we should cherish encounters with constructive outside experts
My quick take if you need to take one thing away from this thought-piece: we need to make sure that, as a community, we incentivize careful analysis of unintended consequences, and then update accordingly! The incentive is to write away unintended effects qualitatively, or handwave a modest discount (or bonus, for positive effects)
When you start a project/âorganisation, it makes sense to put most effort into making your theory of change very rigorous and de-risk it as much as possible. Once you scale that project/âorganisation, you should probably put the same effort on analyzing whether the causal links in your ToC could break-down at scale, and pay attention to the causal effects that fall outside your ToC all together!
The best version of this, as always, employs a good mix of qualitative and quantitative thinking. If anything, I personally think discussions on unintended effects and âbackfire risksâ are often too qualitative, and miss a serious attempt at sizing.
Lastly, a prompt everyone can use:
What incentives are you creating with this project, especially at scale/âmaturity?
How will insiders and outsiders perceive your work when you scale it?
And the memeable: âis there anyone you forgot to ask?!â or âwhoâs left out of this project, but will still experience consequencesâ
Are you crowding anyone out?
Are there (indirect) costs you are incurring on people?
Quick rambly comment from my side (because I didnât expect this to be spread outside of the publication and wasnât aware of timelines :))
Most of the writing is done by Dirk-Jan. I gave input and part of this followed from a conversation we had on stage during EAGxAmsterdam.
I think Dirk-Jan is a rare example of an experienced professional from the ODE field who is willing to engage critically with EA ideas in good faith, and I am very happy we started this discussion :) As a community, I think we should cherish encounters with constructive outside experts
My quick take if you need to take one thing away from this thought-piece: we need to make sure that, as a community, we incentivize careful analysis of unintended consequences, and then update accordingly! The incentive is to write away unintended effects qualitatively, or handwave a modest discount (or bonus, for positive effects)
When you start a project/âorganisation, it makes sense to put most effort into making your theory of change very rigorous and de-risk it as much as possible. Once you scale that project/âorganisation, you should probably put the same effort on analyzing whether the causal links in your ToC could break-down at scale, and pay attention to the causal effects that fall outside your ToC all together!
The best version of this, as always, employs a good mix of qualitative and quantitative thinking. If anything, I personally think discussions on unintended effects and âbackfire risksâ are often too qualitative, and miss a serious attempt at sizing.
Lastly, a prompt everyone can use:
What incentives are you creating with this project, especially at scale/âmaturity?
How will insiders and outsiders perceive your work when you scale it?
And the memeable: âis there anyone you forgot to ask?!â or âwhoâs left out of this project, but will still experience consequencesâ
Are you crowding anyone out?
Are there (indirect) costs you are incurring on people?