One very simplistic model you can use to think about possible research projects in this area is:
Big considerations (classically “crucial considerations”, i.e. moral weight, invertebrate sentience)
New charities/interventions (presenting new ideas or possibilities that can be taken up)
Immediate influence (analysis to shift ongoing or pending projects, donations, or interventions)
It’s far easier to tie work in categories (2) or (3) into behavior changed. By contrast, projects or possible research that falls into the (1) can be very difficult to map to specific plausible changes ahead of time and, sometimes, even after the completion of the work. These projects can also be more likely to be boom or bust, in that the results of investigating them could have huge effects if we or others shift our beliefs but it can be fairly unlikely to change beliefs at all. That said, I think these types of projects can be very valuable and we try to dedicate some of our time to doing them.
I have some follow-up questions.
These categories seem to have some overlapping but different research methodologies and needed skillsets in use. Say, work that more estimation based on gathering quantitative evidence, philosophical work that draws from academic moral philosophy or building world-models from pieces of qualitative evidence. Do you have a model for a categorization for different types of research?
How do you expect work on “Big considerations” to propagate? e.g, in the case of invertebrate sentience, did you have an explicit audience in mind and a resulting ToC?
Hey EdoArad, it looks like you posted a lot of these questions twice and the questions have been answered elsewhere.Here are some answers to the questions I don’t think were posted twice:
~
These categories seem to have some overlapping but different research methodologies and needed skillsets in use. Say, work that more estimation based on gathering quantitative evidence, philosophical work that draws from academic moral philosophy or building world-models from pieces of qualitative evidence. Do you have a model for a categorization for different types of research?
We do not currently have a model for that.
~
How do you expect work on “Big considerations” to propagate? e.g, in the case of invertebrate sentience, did you have an explicit audience in mind and a resulting ToC?
In the case of invertebrate sentience, our audience would be the existing EA-aligned animal welfare movement and big funders, such as Open Philanthropy and the EA Animal Welfare Fund. I hope that if we can demonstrate the cause area is viable and tractable, we might be able to find new funding opportunities and start moving money to them. The EA Animal Welfare Fund has already started giving money to some invertebrate welfare projects this year and I think our research was a part of those decisions.
Yeah, our broader theory of change is mostly (but not entirely) based on improving the output of the EA movement, and having the EA movement push out from there.
In the following comment, Marcus wrote:
I have some follow-up questions.
These categories seem to have some overlapping but different research methodologies and needed skillsets in use. Say, work that more estimation based on gathering quantitative evidence, philosophical work that draws from academic moral philosophy or building world-models from pieces of qualitative evidence. Do you have a model for a categorization for different types of research?
How do you expect work on “Big considerations” to propagate? e.g, in the case of invertebrate sentience, did you have an explicit audience in mind and a resulting ToC?
Hey EdoArad, it looks like you posted a lot of these questions twice and the questions have been answered elsewhere.Here are some answers to the questions I don’t think were posted twice:
~
We do not currently have a model for that.
~
In the case of invertebrate sentience, our audience would be the existing EA-aligned animal welfare movement and big funders, such as Open Philanthropy and the EA Animal Welfare Fund. I hope that if we can demonstrate the cause area is viable and tractable, we might be able to find new funding opportunities and start moving money to them. The EA Animal Welfare Fund has already started giving money to some invertebrate welfare projects this year and I think our research was a part of those decisions.
Thanks for the answer! I find it interesting that the intended audience is internal to EA.
(And sorry about the duplicates—fixed now )
Yeah, our broader theory of change is mostly (but not entirely) based on improving the output of the EA movement, and having the EA movement push out from there.