Let’s chat about this! It’s definitely our focus, and I have some writeups and frameworks about this topic that I was planning to turn into a post sometime soon. Would be happy to hop on a call about this.
First, unfortunately, I think that KPIs of this sort can only capture a portion of the overall impact of this cause area, and that more heuristic analysis is needed here. This is mainly because many internal obstacles are the root or are the bottlenecks of many other cause areas, or as I like to summarize this notion, “people are both the recipients and carriers of most interventions”. For instance, a global change in the human development field could result in less violence, less addictions, and even more moral behavior in general. On the other side of the coin—the bottleneck of many cause areas is increasing and unblocking the potential of talents (e.g. when research is the bottleneck).
Second, about the KPIs: 1. I agree with the first KPI you suggested* 2. The second might need to be a bit more nuanced: Are we marginally increasing the professional effectiveness of many people, by a small number? Or is this intervention able to increase it significantly for specific people? Because of the arguments in the previous paragraph, this might be crucial. 3. I think that we need to add KPIs of immunity to value drift, and/or their opposite, of alignment to personal values. I would argue that large portions of this cause area’s impact are derived from these KPIs (which are also highly neglected).
---
* Minor note: I think you might need to expand this KPI when looking beyond the perspective of classical utilitarianism; From the perspective of preference utilitarianism, there might be additional personal sources of value beyond wellbeing that you might want to check if they are increased by “human development” interventions. I’m not sure how to go about it, but probably a construct of self-fulfillment is important to measure as well (not only life satisfaction). I think this conflict is quite unique to this cause area compared to other cause areas.
Thanks for your reply. I agree that it’s highly complex and can positively affect other cause areas and I’m happy to jam more on this. However, I also think it’s important to not assume that it’s a panacea that’s good for everything. E.g., I do worry that focusing too much on well-being could be bad for the world as one starts to act in ways that optimize for that and neglects the significance of other cause areas. But I think it’s plausibly a really big thing which is why I’m exploring. I’ve written you a dm to set up a call.
Great! Let’s chat. (I definitely agree it’s not good for everything, rather it’s probably worth coming up with a framework that describes in what people-centered cause areas it’s more and less relevant).
Seems good to me. I’m still making up my mind as to whether it should be seen as its own cause area as opposed to a framing and method that can be used to enhance other cause areas.
Let’s chat about this! It’s definitely our focus, and I have some writeups and frameworks about this topic that I was planning to turn into a post sometime soon. Would be happy to hop on a call about this.
First, unfortunately, I think that KPIs of this sort can only capture a portion of the overall impact of this cause area, and that more heuristic analysis is needed here.
This is mainly because many internal obstacles are the root or are the bottlenecks of many other cause areas, or as I like to summarize this notion, “people are both the recipients and carriers of most interventions”.
For instance, a global change in the human development field could result in less violence, less addictions, and even more moral behavior in general. On the other side of the coin—the bottleneck of many cause areas is increasing and unblocking the potential of talents (e.g. when research is the bottleneck).
Second, about the KPIs:
1. I agree with the first KPI you suggested*
2. The second might need to be a bit more nuanced: Are we marginally increasing the professional effectiveness of many people, by a small number? Or is this intervention able to increase it significantly for specific people? Because of the arguments in the previous paragraph, this might be crucial.
3. I think that we need to add KPIs of immunity to value drift, and/or their opposite, of alignment to personal values. I would argue that large portions of this cause area’s impact are derived from these KPIs (which are also highly neglected).
---
* Minor note: I think you might need to expand this KPI when looking beyond the perspective of classical utilitarianism; From the perspective of preference utilitarianism, there might be additional personal sources of value beyond wellbeing that you might want to check if they are increased by “human development” interventions. I’m not sure how to go about it, but probably a construct of self-fulfillment is important to measure as well (not only life satisfaction). I think this conflict is quite unique to this cause area compared to other cause areas.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that it’s highly complex and can positively affect other cause areas and I’m happy to jam more on this. However, I also think it’s important to not assume that it’s a panacea that’s good for everything. E.g., I do worry that focusing too much on well-being could be bad for the world as one starts to act in ways that optimize for that and neglects the significance of other cause areas. But I think it’s plausibly a really big thing which is why I’m exploring. I’ve written you a dm to set up a call.
Great! Let’s chat.
(I definitely agree it’s not good for everything, rather it’s probably worth coming up with a framework that describes in what people-centered cause areas it’s more and less relevant).
Seems good to me. I’m still making up my mind as to whether it should be seen as its own cause area as opposed to a framing and method that can be used to enhance other cause areas.