INT = good per dollar by definition (when used in the quantitative rather than heuristic way), so in that sense it’s exhaustive, though in practice, people often miss some factors that are not as naturally captured by the framework:
People often assess ‘importance’ just based on one yardstick (e.g. QALYs) when there are effects on other relevant metrics (e.g. x-risk reduction, economic growth) (and the choice of which yardsticks to focus on in the first place is where a lot of the action is).
Coordination considerations e.g. portfolio approach, comparative advantage, trade with people with other values.
Cross-cutting epistemic considerations such as regression to the mean & epistemic humility & how to deal with unmeasured factors – partially covered in my recent podcast. People often only report their ‘unadjusted’ estimates and don’t account for these.
Movement building effects e.g. promoting one cause might bring people into others.
Funging e.g. if you solve one problem, it might free up resources to work on another.
I find it useful to try to make a ‘direct’ estimate using INT, and then to have a separate ‘all considered’ estimate that aims to take account of all the above.
The application of INT also gets more complicated depending on whether you’re interested in the resources spent in a certain year or over all time. Likewise, there are issues like complementarities between different forms of resources (e.g. funding vs. labour) that can mean the analysis is different for different resources.
You could also have another category of timing considerations, such as these. Toby’s soon, sharp, sudden framework helps to capture some of timing factors as well, or you could think of them as guides to what’s most important.
As an alternative, I think it’s also useful to think of cost-effectiveness analysis of specific interventions as a separate framework that provides a different perspective.
INT is also only about how pressing causes are in general. In practice if you’re making a real decision, you also need to consider your personal fit, career capital, the quality of the specific opportunity etc. as well as other moral considerations besides good done.
INT = good per dollar by definition (when used in the quantitative rather than heuristic way), so in that sense it’s exhaustive, though in practice, people often miss some factors that are not as naturally captured by the framework:
People often assess ‘importance’ just based on one yardstick (e.g. QALYs) when there are effects on other relevant metrics (e.g. x-risk reduction, economic growth) (and the choice of which yardsticks to focus on in the first place is where a lot of the action is).
Value of information—can be included in either I or N, but often missed.
Coordination considerations e.g. portfolio approach, comparative advantage, trade with people with other values.
Cross-cutting epistemic considerations such as regression to the mean & epistemic humility & how to deal with unmeasured factors – partially covered in my recent podcast. People often only report their ‘unadjusted’ estimates and don’t account for these.
Movement building effects e.g. promoting one cause might bring people into others.
Funging e.g. if you solve one problem, it might free up resources to work on another.
I find it useful to try to make a ‘direct’ estimate using INT, and then to have a separate ‘all considered’ estimate that aims to take account of all the above.
The application of INT also gets more complicated depending on whether you’re interested in the resources spent in a certain year or over all time. Likewise, there are issues like complementarities between different forms of resources (e.g. funding vs. labour) that can mean the analysis is different for different resources.
You could also have another category of timing considerations, such as these. Toby’s soon, sharp, sudden framework helps to capture some of timing factors as well, or you could think of them as guides to what’s most important.
As an alternative, I think it’s also useful to think of cost-effectiveness analysis of specific interventions as a separate framework that provides a different perspective.
INT is also only about how pressing causes are in general. In practice if you’re making a real decision, you also need to consider your personal fit, career capital, the quality of the specific opportunity etc. as well as other moral considerations besides good done.