Hi Owen, I think this paper (and the other stuff you have posed recently) are very good. It is good to see breakdowns of longtermism that are more practicably applicable to life and to solving some of the problems in the world today.
I would like to draw your attention to the COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation—Behaviour) model of behaviour change in case you are not already aware of it. The model is, as I understand it a fairly standard practice in governance reform in international development. The model is as follows:
The idea is that government decisions are dependent on the Behaviour (B) of key actors. This matches very closely to the idea that critical junctures are dependent on the Virtues embodied by key actors.
An outside actor can ensure Behaviour goes well (behaviour changed for the better) by addressing key actors Capabilities (C), Opportunities (O) and Motivations (M). This matches very closely to your three points that the key actors must be 3) competent, must 1) know about the problem and must 2) care enough to solve it.
The model then offers a range of tools and ways to break down COM into smaller challenges and and influence COM to achieve B and can be worked into a Theory of Change.
I think it is useful for you to be aware of this (if you are not already) as:
It shows you are on the right track. It sounds like from your post you are uncertain about the Key Virtue assumption. If you just thought up this assumption it could be good to know that it matches very very closely to an existing approach to changing the actions of key actors in positions of governance (or elsewhere).
It provides a more standard language to use if you want to move from speaking to philosophers to speaking to actors in the institutional reform space.
COM-B may be a better model. By virtue of being tried and tested COM-B is likely a better model with empirical evidence and academic papers behind it. Of course it is not perfect and there are criticisms of it (similar to how there are criticisms of QALYs in global health but they are still useful).
It provides a whole range of useful tools for thinking through the next steps of influencing key behaviours /​ key virtues. As mentioned there are various ways of breaking down the problems, tools to use to drive change, and even criticisms that highlight what the model misses.
I hope this is useful for resolving some of the uncertainty you expressed about the Key Virtue assumption and for refining next steps when you come to work on that.
I would caveat that I find COM-B useful to think through but I am not a practitioner (I’m like an EA thinking in QALYs but not having to actually work with them).
I think there is a meta point here that I keep reading papers from FHI/​GPI and getting the impression (rightly or wrongly) that stuff that is basic from a policy perspective is being being derived from scratch, often worse than the original. I would be keen to see FHI/​GPI engage more with existing best practice at driving change.
Hi Owen, I think this paper (and the other stuff you have posed recently) are very good. It is good to see breakdowns of longtermism that are more practicably applicable to life and to solving some of the problems in the world today.
I would like to draw your attention to the COM-B (Capability Opportunity Motivation—Behaviour) model of behaviour change in case you are not already aware of it. The model is, as I understand it a fairly standard practice in governance reform in international development. The model is as follows:
The idea is that government decisions are dependent on the Behaviour (B) of key actors. This matches very closely to the idea that critical junctures are dependent on the Virtues embodied by key actors.
An outside actor can ensure Behaviour goes well (behaviour changed for the better) by addressing key actors Capabilities (C), Opportunities (O) and Motivations (M). This matches very closely to your three points that the key actors must be 3) competent, must 1) know about the problem and must 2) care enough to solve it.
The model then offers a range of tools and ways to break down COM into smaller challenges and and influence COM to achieve B and can be worked into a Theory of Change.
I think it is useful for you to be aware of this (if you are not already) as:
It shows you are on the right track. It sounds like from your post you are uncertain about the Key Virtue assumption. If you just thought up this assumption it could be good to know that it matches very very closely to an existing approach to changing the actions of key actors in positions of governance (or elsewhere).
It provides a more standard language to use if you want to move from speaking to philosophers to speaking to actors in the institutional reform space.
COM-B may be a better model. By virtue of being tried and tested COM-B is likely a better model with empirical evidence and academic papers behind it. Of course it is not perfect and there are criticisms of it (similar to how there are criticisms of QALYs in global health but they are still useful).
It provides a whole range of useful tools for thinking through the next steps of influencing key behaviours /​ key virtues. As mentioned there are various ways of breaking down the problems, tools to use to drive change, and even criticisms that highlight what the model misses.
I hope this is useful for resolving some of the uncertainty you expressed about the Key Virtue assumption and for refining next steps when you come to work on that.
I would caveat that I find COM-B useful to think through but I am not a practitioner (I’m like an EA thinking in QALYs but not having to actually work with them).
I think there is a meta point here that I keep reading papers from FHI/​GPI and getting the impression (rightly or wrongly) that stuff that is basic from a policy perspective is being being derived from scratch, often worse than the original. I would be keen to see FHI/​GPI engage more with existing best practice at driving change.