Given that effective altruism is "a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice"[1] it seems surprisingly rare to me that people actually do the hard work of:
1. (Systematically) exploring cause areas
2. Writing up their (working hypothesis of a) ranked or tiered list, with good reasoning transparency
3. Sharing their list and reasons publicly.[2]
The lists I can think of that do this best are by 80,000 Hours, Open Philanthropy's, and CEARCH's list.
Related things I appreciate, but aren't quite what I'm envisioning:
* Tools and models like those by Rethink Priorities and Mercy For Animals, though they're less focused on explanation of specific prioritisation decisions.
* Longlists of causes by Nuno Sempere and CEARCH, though these don't provide ratings, rankings, and reasoning.
* Various posts pitching a single cause area and giving reasons to consider it a top priority without integrating it into an individual or organisation's broader prioritisation process.
There are also some lists of cause area priorities from outside effective altruism / the importance, neglectedness, tractability framework, although these often lack any explicit methodology, e.g. the UN, World Economic Forum, or the Copenhagen Consensus.
If you know of other public writeups and explanations of ranked lists, please share them in the comments![3]
1. ^
Of course, this is only one definition. But my impression is that many definitions share some focus on cause prioritisation, or first working out what doing the most good actually means.
2. ^
I'm a hypocrite of course, because my own thoughts on cause prioritisation are scattered across various docs, spreadsheets, long-forgotten corners of my brain... and not at all systematic or thorough. I think I roughly:
- Came at effective altruism with a hypothesis of a top cause area based on arbitrary and contingent factors from my youth/adolescence (ending factory farming),
- Had that hypothesis worn down by various information and arguments I encountered and changed my views on the top causes
- Didn't ever go back and do a systemic cause prioritisation exercise from first principles (e.g. evaluating cause candidates from a long-list that includes 'not-core-EA™-cause-areas' or based on criteria other than ITN).
I suspect this is pretty common. I also worry people are deferring too much on what is perhaps the most fundamental question of the EA project.
3. ^
Rough and informal explanations welcome. I'd especially welcome any suggestions that come from a different methodology or set of worldviews & assumptions to 80k and Open Phil. I ask partly because I'd like to be able to share multiple different perspectives when I introduce people to cause prioritisation to avoid creating pressure to defer to a single list.