Same! I think neglectedness is more useful for identifying impactful “just add more funding” style interventions, but is less useful for identifying impactful careers and other types of interventions since focusing on neglectedness systematically misses high leverage careers and interventions.
I totally agree! You articulated something I’ve been thinking about lately in a very clear manner; I think you’re absolutely right to distinguish the value of neglectedness for funding vs. career choice—it’s such a useful heuristic for funding considerations, but I think it can be used too indiscriminately in conversations about career choice.
Same! I think neglectedness is more useful for identifying impactful “just add more funding” style interventions, but is less useful for identifying impactful careers and other types of interventions since focusing on neglectedness systematically misses high leverage careers and interventions.
I totally agree! You articulated something I’ve been thinking about lately in a very clear manner; I think you’re absolutely right to distinguish the value of neglectedness for funding vs. career choice—it’s such a useful heuristic for funding considerations, but I think it can be used too indiscriminately in conversations about career choice.