Lastly, I think your model right now assumes 80K has 100% responsibility for all their career changes. Maybe this is completely fine because 80K already weights their reported career change numbers for counterfactuality? Or maybe there’s some other good reason to not take this into account? I admit there’s a good chance I’m missing something here, but it would be nice to see it addressed more specifically.
I don’t think that’s true, because the GWWC pledge value figures have been counterfactually adjusted, and because we don’t count all of the people we’ve influenced to take the GWWC pledge.
While 1 impact-adjusted change is approximately the value of a GWWC pledge, that doesn’t mean it is equal in both mean and standard deviation as your model suggests, since the plan changes involve a wide variety of different possibilities.
Agree with that—the standard deviation should be larger.
I don’t think that’s true, because the GWWC pledge value figures have been counterfactually adjusted, and because we don’t count all of the people we’ve influenced to take the GWWC pledge.
More discussion here: https://80000hours.org/2016/12/has-80000-hours-justified-its-costs/#giving-what-we-can-pledges
Agree with that—the standard deviation should be larger.