In the weighting of the RCT, that seems a fact claim. How could it be written such that you’d agree with it given the below table?
I think a problem with the statement is that it gives the impression that the weighing of the 2020 RCT is the only concern about weighting (and maybe about the CEA as a whole), such that disregarding it would fully address the concern about weighting. That kind of aura is hard to avoid when you’re writing one-sentence claims, and probably explains much of the ? and s votes. So if I were trying to write a consensus statement, it would read something like:
Conditional on the rest of the CEA being sound, re-weighting the 2020 SM RCT from 13% to 0% would not change the outcome very much
How do you judge honest/dishonest errors, what is a clearer standard
Many people (including myself) have very limited qualifications to assess whether errors in a CEA are “honest” or not (unless the situation is really clear cut), so skip or it’s complicated may be the most appropriate answers for those people.
There’s also some ambiguity in the term “honest errors”—if I were qualified to answer this question as written, I would answer agree if I thought the errors were the result of at most ordinary negligence, would answer it’s complicated for gross negligence or lesser forms of recklessness, and would answer disagree for more severe forms of recklessness or for intent. I think this would be hard to measure well with yes/no/complicated unless you asked a lot of fine-tuned questions.
Takeaways poll
What are your takeaways having read the comments of this piece?
Personally I find it’s good to understand what we all agree/disagree/are uncertain on.
Please add your own comments (there is a button at the bottom) or rewrite comments you find confusing into ones you could agree/disagree with.
Also if you know the answer confidently to something people seem unsure of, perhaps say.
https://viewpoints.xyz/polls/concrete-takeaways-from-hli-post
Results (33 responses): https://viewpoints.xyz/polls/concrete-takeaways-from-hli-post/analytics
Concensus of agree/disagre
The “grave shortcomings” agreement is pretty surprising.
Uncertainty (lets write some more comments or give answers in the comments)
Some questions I’d like to know the answers to
What would convince you that HLI brings enough value to the table that it should be funded?
In the weighting of the RCT, that seems a fact claim. How could it be written such that you’d agree with it given the below table?
How do you judge honest/dishonest errors, what is a clearer standard
What would HLI managing controversies well or badly look like?
How could we know if SW is more well respected? Is there a consensus position?
I think a problem with the statement is that it gives the impression that the weighing of the 2020 RCT is the only concern about weighting (and maybe about the CEA as a whole), such that disregarding it would fully address the concern about weighting. That kind of aura is hard to avoid when you’re writing one-sentence claims, and probably explains much of the ? and s votes. So if I were trying to write a consensus statement, it would read something like:
Conditional on the rest of the CEA being sound, re-weighting the 2020 SM RCT from 13% to 0% would not change the outcome very much
Is there a way to get full data for all statements?
Many people (including myself) have very limited qualifications to assess whether errors in a CEA are “honest” or not (unless the situation is really clear cut), so skip or it’s complicated may be the most appropriate answers for those people.
There’s also some ambiguity in the term “honest errors”—if I were qualified to answer this question as written, I would answer agree if I thought the errors were the result of at most ordinary negligence, would answer it’s complicated for gross negligence or lesser forms of recklessness, and would answer disagree for more severe forms of recklessness or for intent. I think this would be hard to measure well with yes/no/complicated unless you asked a lot of fine-tuned questions.
(Also I’m trying to get viewpoints to fit inside an iframe and have a pull request. I’ve had one run at it, but if anyone else wants to take one, it’s here https://github.com/ForumMagnum/ForumMagnum/pull/7488 )