Multiplying them together would be the same it’s true. I was talking about keeping it disaggregated. In this view rather than a single priority Q we can have an “importance Q”, “tractability Q”, “neglectedness Q” and we compare interventions that way.
The desire to have a total ordering over interventions is understandable but I don’t know if it’s always good when changing one subjective probability estimate from 10^-5 to 10^-6 can jump your intervention from “fantastic deal” to “garbage deal”. By limiting the effect of any one criterion, the ITN framework is more stable to changing subjective estimates. Holden’s cluster thinking vs sequence thinking essay goes into that in more detail.
I feel like the best way to do that is to multiply things together.
And if you have error bars around I, T & N, then you can probably do something more precise, but still close in spirit to “multiply the three things together”
Multiplying them together would be the same it’s true. I was talking about keeping it disaggregated. In this view rather than a single priority Q we can have an “importance Q”, “tractability Q”, “neglectedness Q” and we compare interventions that way.
The desire to have a total ordering over interventions is understandable but I don’t know if it’s always good when changing one subjective probability estimate from 10^-5 to 10^-6 can jump your intervention from “fantastic deal” to “garbage deal”. By limiting the effect of any one criterion, the ITN framework is more stable to changing subjective estimates. Holden’s cluster thinking vs sequence thinking essay goes into that in more detail.
Other breakdowns would be fine as well.
How would you compare these two interventions:
1: I=10 T=1 N=1
2: I=1 T=2 N = 2
I feel like the best way to do that is to multiply things together.
And if you have error bars around I, T & N, then you can probably do something more precise, but still close in spirit to “multiply the three things together”