Set point. I think setting a neutral point on a life satisfaction scale of 5⁄10 is somewhere between unreasonable and unconscionable
The author doesn’t argue that the neutral point is 5⁄10, he argues (1) that the decision about where to set the neutral point is crucial for prioritising resources, (2) you haven’t defended a particular neutral point in public.
and OP institutionally is comfortable with the implication that saving human lives is almost always good. Given that we think the correct neutral point is low, taking your other points on board would imply that we should place even more weight on life-saving interventions.
I don’t really see how this responds to Michael’s point. You say “assuming that the neutral point is low, we should spend more on life saving”. But his point is that you haven’t defended a low neutral point and that it might be above zero. If the neutral point is (eg) 2.5, that implies that much of your spending on life saving (like bednets) is net harmful. One recent unpublished study found that UK respondents put the neutral point at 2. This seems like the kind of thing that is practically important enough to make it worth GiveWell thinking about.
The author doesn’t argue that the neutral point is 5⁄10, he argues (1) that the decision about where to set the neutral point is crucial for prioritising resources, (2) you haven’t defended a particular neutral point in public.
I don’t really see how this responds to Michael’s point. You say “assuming that the neutral point is low, we should spend more on life saving”. But his point is that you haven’t defended a low neutral point and that it might be above zero. If the neutral point is (eg) 2.5, that implies that much of your spending on life saving (like bednets) is net harmful. One recent unpublished study found that UK respondents put the neutral point at 2. This seems like the kind of thing that is practically important enough to make it worth GiveWell thinking about.