We have published a summary of the survey, but we only plan on publishing deeper reports on the top ideas we recommend. Due to the lack of preexisting research, we would be less confident in the robustness of the shallow reports. We think itās quite likely we will find exciting-sounding but ultimately less impactful ideas, and do not want people to found charities based on our reports on non-recommended areas.
I think itād be reasonable to not publish the shallow reports because of associated time costs, but Iām not sure I really see the logic for not posting due to downside risk.
I think you could just have strong caveats, clear epistemic statuses, reasoning transparency, etc.
And then to a decent extent, you can trust readers to update their beliefs and behaviours appropriately.
If they update wildly inappropriately, this may also suggest what they wouldāve done otherwise isnāt great either (maybe theyāre just not great at choosing careers), so the ālost impactā is lower (though actual downsides caused by what they do could still be important).
I donāt think people will found charities at the drop of a hatāthatās a big commitment, and essentially requires funding or large savings, so theyāll presumably want and have to talk to people for advice, funding, hires, etc.
Your shallow reports might also suggest why an idea doesnāt seem promising, and thereās at least some chance someone else wouldāve spent time thinking about the idea themselves later.
Again, Iām not necessarily advocating you try to publish those shallow reports, nor even necessarily saying Iād read them. Iām just not sure I understand/ābuy the argument that publication would be net negative due to the chance that (a) the idea is bad, (b) you fail to realise or convey this, and (c) someone actually takes the big step of founding a charity due to this, and this is notably worse than what they wouldāve done otherwise.
I think itād be reasonable to not publish the shallow reports because of associated time costs, but Iām not sure I really see the logic for not posting due to downside risk.
I think you could just have strong caveats, clear epistemic statuses, reasoning transparency, etc.
And then to a decent extent, you can trust readers to update their beliefs and behaviours appropriately.
If they update wildly inappropriately, this may also suggest what they wouldāve done otherwise isnāt great either (maybe theyāre just not great at choosing careers), so the ālost impactā is lower (though actual downsides caused by what they do could still be important).
I donāt think people will found charities at the drop of a hatāthatās a big commitment, and essentially requires funding or large savings, so theyāll presumably want and have to talk to people for advice, funding, hires, etc.
Your shallow reports might also suggest why an idea doesnāt seem promising, and thereās at least some chance someone else wouldāve spent time thinking about the idea themselves later.
Again, Iām not necessarily advocating you try to publish those shallow reports, nor even necessarily saying Iād read them. Iām just not sure I understand/ābuy the argument that publication would be net negative due to the chance that (a) the idea is bad, (b) you fail to realise or convey this, and (c) someone actually takes the big step of founding a charity due to this, and this is notably worse than what they wouldāve done otherwise.