I think this is a good topic, but including the word “far” kind of ruins the debate from the start as it seems like the person positing it may already have made up their mind and it introduces unnecessary bias.
Ya, we could just use a more neutral framing: Is animal welfare or global health more cost-effective?
What do you think is the 50⁄50 point? Where half of people believe more, half less.
Not sure.
We could replace the agree/disagree slider with a cost-effectiveness ratio slider.
One issue could be that animal welfare has more quickly diminishing returns than GHD.
Maybe but let’s not overcomplicate things.
Sure then quantify it, right?
Sure but 10x seems a weird place to start, surely start with “more cost effective” before applying arbitrary multipliers...
1x is an arbitrary multiplier too.
I would want to put the number at the 50th percentile belief on the forum.
I think this is a good topic, but including the word “far” kind of ruins the debate from the start as it seems like the person positing it may already have made up their mind and it introduces unnecessary bias.
Ya, we could just use a more neutral framing: Is animal welfare or global health more cost-effective?
What do you think is the 50⁄50 point? Where half of people believe more, half less.
Not sure.
We could replace the agree/disagree slider with a cost-effectiveness ratio slider.
One issue could be that animal welfare has more quickly diminishing returns than GHD.
Maybe but let’s not overcomplicate things.
Sure then quantify it, right?
Sure but 10x seems a weird place to start, surely start with “more cost effective” before applying arbitrary multipliers...
1x is an arbitrary multiplier too.
I would want to put the number at the 50th percentile belief on the forum.