One reason to keep Tractability separate from Neglectedness is to distinguish between “% of problem solved / extra dollars from anyone” and “% of problem solved / extra dollars from you”.
In theory, anybody’s marginal dollar is just as good as anyone else’s. But by making the distinction explicit, it forces you to consider where on the marginal utility curve we actually are. If you don’t track how many other dollars have already been poured into solving a problem, you might be overly optimistic about how far the next dollar will go.
I think this may be close to the reason Holden(?) originally had in mind when he included neglectedness in the framework.
I’m not sure I follow. In my framework, “how many other dollars have already been poured into solving a problem” is captured by crowdedness, ie., total resources allocated to the problem, ie., the position on the x-axis.
One reason to keep Tractability separate from Neglectedness is to distinguish between “% of problem solved / extra dollars from anyone” and “% of problem solved / extra dollars from you”.
In theory, anybody’s marginal dollar is just as good as anyone else’s. But by making the distinction explicit, it forces you to consider where on the marginal utility curve we actually are. If you don’t track how many other dollars have already been poured into solving a problem, you might be overly optimistic about how far the next dollar will go.
I think this may be close to the reason Holden(?) originally had in mind when he included neglectedness in the framework.
I’m not sure I follow. In my framework, “how many other dollars have already been poured into solving a problem” is captured by crowdedness, ie., total resources allocated to the problem, ie., the position on the x-axis.
Fair point.