Short version: I want to discourage people from using these numbers in any context where that level of precision might be relevant.
I thought this would be the reason. That being said, I still think it makes sense to present the results with 2 or 3 significantdigits whenever the uncertainty is already being conveyed. For example, if I say the mean moral weight is 1.00, and the 5th and 95th percentiles are 0.00100 and 1.00 k, it should be clear that the result is pretty uncertain, even though all numbers have 3 significant digits.
That is, if the sign of someoneâs analysis turns on three significant digits, then I doubt that their analysis is action-relevant.
I agree in general, but wonder whether for some cases it may matter in a non-crucial way. For example, the ratio between 1.50 and 2.49 is 0.602 without rounding, but 1 if we round both numbers to 2. An error of a factor of 0.602 may not be crucial, but it will not necessarily be totally negligible either.
Finally, I should stress that Iâm seeing people use these âmoral weightsâ roughly as follows: â100 humans = ~33 chickens (100*.332= ~33).â This is not the way theyâre intended to be used.
Ahah, I agree! They are supposed to be used as follows: â100 chickens = 100*0.332 humans = 33.2 humansâ. One should always be careful not to interpret the moral weight of chickens relative to humans as that of humans relative to chickens, and also present the final result with 3 significant digits instead of 2.
Jokes apart, when I read â[based on RPâs median moral weights] 100 chickens = 33.2 humansâ, I assume we are considering the duration and intensity of experience (relative to the moral weight) are the same for both humans and chickens, because that is what the moral weight alone tells us. However, if one says âsaving x humans equals saving y chickensâ, I agree the moral weights have to be combined with other variables, because now we are describing the consequences of actions instead of just a direct comparison of experiences.
Thanks for clarifying!
I thought this would be the reason. That being said, I still think it makes sense to present the results with 2 or 3 significantdigits whenever the uncertainty is already being conveyed. For example, if I say the mean moral weight is 1.00, and the 5th and 95th percentiles are 0.00100 and 1.00 k, it should be clear that the result is pretty uncertain, even though all numbers have 3 significant digits.
I agree in general, but wonder whether for some cases it may matter in a non-crucial way. For example, the ratio between 1.50 and 2.49 is 0.602 without rounding, but 1 if we round both numbers to 2. An error of a factor of 0.602 may not be crucial, but it will not necessarily be totally negligible either.
Ahah, I agree! They are supposed to be used as follows: â100 chickens = 100*0.332 humans = 33.2 humansâ. One should always be careful not to interpret the moral weight of chickens relative to humans as that of humans relative to chickens, and also present the final result with 3 significant digits instead of 2.
Jokes apart, when I read â[based on RPâs median moral weights] 100 chickens = 33.2 humansâ, I assume we are considering the duration and intensity of experience (relative to the moral weight) are the same for both humans and chickens, because that is what the moral weight alone tells us. However, if one says âsaving x humans equals saving y chickensâ, I agree the moral weights have to be combined with other variables, because now we are describing the consequences of actions instead of just a direct comparison of experiences.