I made a similar argument a few years back, advocating that GiveWell should rank, rate, and measure charities beyond the absolute best/most measurable.
A common response was that the evidence suggested the returns were so heavy-tailed… So moving money from ~ineffective charities (Make a Wish) to ‘near-top’ charities, or to mainstream charities operating in similar areas (say MSF vs. AMF) would have far less value than moving money from near-top to top charities.
My counter-response was … ~we don’t have solid that charities like MSF are much less effective than AMF, my prior is a less heavy-tail, and we should try to collect more evidence on ‘mainstream multi-intervention charities’.
Not sure if a similar argument applies within the context of animal welfare charities – I’d guess so (within the context of farm animal welfare, say).
I made a similar argument a few years back, advocating that GiveWell should rank, rate, and measure charities beyond the absolute best/most measurable.
A common response was that the evidence suggested the returns were so heavy-tailed… So moving money from ~ineffective charities (Make a Wish) to ‘near-top’ charities, or to mainstream charities operating in similar areas (say MSF vs. AMF) would have far less value than moving money from near-top to top charities.
My counter-response was … ~we don’t have solid that charities like MSF are much less effective than AMF, my prior is a less heavy-tail, and we should try to collect more evidence on ‘mainstream multi-intervention charities’.
Not sure if a similar argument applies within the context of animal welfare charities – I’d guess so (within the context of farm animal welfare, say).