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.
Late to this conversation, but I like the debate idea. A simple way to get a cost-effectiveness slider might be just to have the statement be “On the current margin $100m should go to:” and the slider go from 100% animal welfare to 100% global health, with a mid-point being 50⁄50.
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.
Late to this conversation, but I like the debate idea. A simple way to get a cost-effectiveness slider might be just to have the statement be “On the current margin $100m should go to:” and the slider go from 100% animal welfare to 100% global health, with a mid-point being 50⁄50.
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.