I think this is a great thing to do, and have a general policy of approving of net positive actions. I also think that there are several convincing claims about why this is potentially tractable, including the arguments that it is fully additive, and that it avoids the need for coordination. Unfortunately, I also think that it fails to clear the bar for what we should expect in effective altruism in a couple ways.
First, I remain unconvinced that it’s a “top-effective” intervention. It’s unreasonable to say that it is cost-effective when there are opportunity costs which are not explored, and the actual impact is not quantified. As Vasco lays out below, there should be a stronger case that this is better than alternatives, or a clearer case that it should be done as an effective but ancillary activity which people can do in their free time, rather than as something that is as effective as the human league or other campaigns. To change that, I think that there should be a clear explanation of what is required for this to succeed in individual cases (training, experience,) an estimate of the time required, and an estimate of the actual impact (what proportion of people change their behavior, how much does it change, how long does the change persist,) and a exploration of how and when this could be net-negative (if done poorly, if it generates pushback when done at scale, etc.)
Second, I also think that it’s not ambitious enough on its own terms; if it is as effective as claimed, how can it be scaled up effectively? Should there be volunteer training groups to teach people to do this more widely? Can this be done via existing networks? Could there be a trial designed to measure impact?
To conclude, overall, I think that this is admirable and a potentially tractable, but presented with misleadingly strong claims, and as I outlined above, neither as clear on several points as it could be, nor as ambitious as would be beneficial.
What I meant was that from all public outreach, this deep questioning is one of the most cost-effective. If deep questioning is much less cost-effective than other strategies, then surely public outreach in general does not belong to the top effective strategies.
Which opportunity costs were not explored?
I think deep questioning should be done as an ancillary activity which people can do in their free time
Some grassroots animal rights organizations that do a lot of public outreach with volunteers, could perhaps switch to deep questioning, or encourage their volunteers to do so.
If the claim was that this is best among public outreach interventions, the title is misleading. The post also doesn’t really compare deep questioning to other public outreach methods, just justifies it on its own terms.
Opportunity costs for attention and time are the other things people could be doing, and it it common and I think basically justifiable to value people’s time at a level similar to their work salary. The reasoning is that typically, even if you can’t make money during your free time, people are willing to spend money and give up other opportunities to get free time—if they want to use that time to do deep questioning, that’s great, but if and when they do, they are explicitly valuing that use of their time over other options.
And I agree that some grassroots organizations could push this forward, but I worry doing it on behalf of an organization with an explicit agenda, even as a volunteer, might undermine the personal connection of deep questioning. As you said, “the interlocutors do not have the impression that the public outreacher is from an organization and tries to persuade them of something.” If they are, in fact, coming from an organization, that seems to be deeply deceptive.
I think this is a great thing to do, and have a general policy of approving of net positive actions. I also think that there are several convincing claims about why this is potentially tractable, including the arguments that it is fully additive, and that it avoids the need for coordination. Unfortunately, I also think that it fails to clear the bar for what we should expect in effective altruism in a couple ways.
First, I remain unconvinced that it’s a “top-effective” intervention. It’s unreasonable to say that it is cost-effective when there are opportunity costs which are not explored, and the actual impact is not quantified. As Vasco lays out below, there should be a stronger case that this is better than alternatives, or a clearer case that it should be done as an effective but ancillary activity which people can do in their free time, rather than as something that is as effective as the human league or other campaigns. To change that, I think that there should be a clear explanation of what is required for this to succeed in individual cases (training, experience,) an estimate of the time required, and an estimate of the actual impact (what proportion of people change their behavior, how much does it change, how long does the change persist,) and a exploration of how and when this could be net-negative (if done poorly, if it generates pushback when done at scale, etc.)
Second, I also think that it’s not ambitious enough on its own terms; if it is as effective as claimed, how can it be scaled up effectively? Should there be volunteer training groups to teach people to do this more widely? Can this be done via existing networks? Could there be a trial designed to measure impact?
To conclude, overall, I think that this is admirable and a potentially tractable, but presented with misleadingly strong claims, and as I outlined above, neither as clear on several points as it could be, nor as ambitious as would be beneficial.
What I meant was that from all public outreach, this deep questioning is one of the most cost-effective. If deep questioning is much less cost-effective than other strategies, then surely public outreach in general does not belong to the top effective strategies.
Which opportunity costs were not explored?
I think deep questioning should be done as an ancillary activity which people can do in their free time
Some grassroots animal rights organizations that do a lot of public outreach with volunteers, could perhaps switch to deep questioning, or encourage their volunteers to do so.
If the claim was that this is best among public outreach interventions, the title is misleading. The post also doesn’t really compare deep questioning to other public outreach methods, just justifies it on its own terms.
Opportunity costs for attention and time are the other things people could be doing, and it it common and I think basically justifiable to value people’s time at a level similar to their work salary. The reasoning is that typically, even if you can’t make money during your free time, people are willing to spend money and give up other opportunities to get free time—if they want to use that time to do deep questioning, that’s great, but if and when they do, they are explicitly valuing that use of their time over other options.
And I agree that some grassroots organizations could push this forward, but I worry doing it on behalf of an organization with an explicit agenda, even as a volunteer, might undermine the personal connection of deep questioning. As you said, “the interlocutors do not have the impression that the public outreacher is from an organization and tries to persuade them of something.” If they are, in fact, coming from an organization, that seems to be deeply deceptive.