Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
ChanaMessinger2
0
0

Have passed on to the team!

Reply
See in context
Tools for collaborative truth seeking
by brook, ChanaMessinger
3 min read 4

28

ForecastingTools for collaborative truth-seekingGuesstimatePersonal development
Personal Blog

Guesstimate is a quantitative model-building tool built to focus on uncertainty. The interface works the same as google sheets or excel; a grid of cells where data can be entered. Cells can then be referenced by other cells for calculations. 

This post is a text tutorial for guesstimate. The landing page for guesstimate also gives a rough idea of the point of the tool, and is a reasonable place to get a feel for if this is the right tool for the job.

When can Guesstimate be Useful?

  • Estimate Return on Investment for an EA intervention
  • Predict attendance of your EA group over the next year
  • Decide whether you should get a surgery or not
  • Pick which job you should take
  • Decide whether you should date somebody
  • Pick which microwave you should buy
  • Predict personal & business finances

Video Guide

Text Guide

Why use guesstimate?

Guesstimate has two key benefits over google sheets/excel:

  1. Each cell can have uncertainty
  2. Cell references are displayed visually (as well as in the formula of a cell)

This means that guesstimate is highly appropriate for fermi estimates, logic models, and any other format where you have uncertainty about some or all of the inputs, or of their effect sizes on the outputs. The visual nature of guesstimate also makes it easy to share; it’s easy to see how a model works.

If you prefer hands-on learning, a simple model to demonstrate the basic features is available here. 

Basic Guesstimate Functions

Double click anywhere empty in the grid to create a new cell. A cell has two attributes, a name and a value. A name should just help people (and you, in six months!) understand your model. The value can be of several types:

  • Single value (7000)
  • 90% Confidence interval (6 to 7[1])
  • Specific dataset (9.8, 17, 12, 34, -2, 113)
     

Formulae

Cells’ value can also reference other cells like other spreadsheets. Typing ‘=’ at the beginning of the value field tells guesstimate the value is a formula; you can then click any other cell to create a reference to it, and perform basic numerical operations or ‘if’ statements on them. 

While editing a formula, cells also show a three-letter reference at their top right, which you can type to manually refer to another cell. 

For a more in-depth guide, see the official documentation.

Worked Examples

Personal Experience

Personally, I find guesstimate models pretty intuitive to build & to interpret. I expect people who dislike visual information and/or have a lot of experience coding will find Squiggle more intuitive. 

Guesstimate also gets quite clunky and difficult to understand with larger models with many connections, as the screen becomes more clustered/it becomes difficult to decide where boxes belong (see e.g. this model). This can be mitigated by breaking the problem up into sensible modules/subsections that are given their own area or entire model. 

Try it Yourself!

With each post, I'm going to encourage you to give it a go! 

For guesstimate, I've picked a specific question to get things going; in future I'll try to encourage finding examples closer to your life. 

What is the total value of all the goods in a supermarket?

Spend 15-30 minutes making a guesstimate model to answer this question! Share your model in the comments as well as your experience of using guesstimate.

We're also running a short event in the EA GatherTown at 6pm GMT today to use Guesstimate, if you'd like to bring your model or make it during the session, or if you have any questions!

 

Tomorrow: Visualisation of Probability Mass, a neat little tool for changing visual intuitions into numbers, and vice versa. We'll be having a GatherTown event at the same time tomorrow!

  1. ^

    Can be normal, lognormal, or uniform distribution

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Previous:
Announcing Introductions for Collaborative Truth Seeking Tools
7 comments82 karma
Next:
Visualisation of Probability Mass
6 comments25 karma
Mentioned in
Comments5


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Bella2
0
0

Hey — this is probably totally the wrong place for this question, but, shrug.

I love Guesstimate. But right now I'm getting an 'ERROR SAVING' on all my models. It looks like this is a documented issue here but I couldn't find a fix. Any ideas?

Reply
ChanaMessinger2
0
0

Have passed on to the team!

Reply
Slava Matyukhn1
0
0

Have you tried to refresh the page, or sign out and sign in again?

There's an auth issue where it might seem like you're signed in but really aren't. And the auth becomes stale every 24 hours, so it happens pretty frequently.

(Fix for this is in works but might take a few more weeks to deploy)

Reply
Bella2
0
0

Hey — thanks, yeah, I did try that at the time but IIRC it didn't fix the issue. However the issue fixed itself in the following couple days, so, not sure what happened but I'm not getting the error!

Tysm for looking into it!

Reply
[comment deleted]1
0
0
Deleted by Slava Matyukhn,
More from brook
82
Announcing Introductions for Collaborative Truth Seeking Tools
2 authors
· · 3m read
7
7
44
Squiggle: Why and how to use it
2 authors
· · 3m read
4
4
35
Small EA Groups and Invisible Impact
brook
· · 2m read
3
3
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Recent opportunities in Forecasting
19
Evals projects I'd like to see, and a call to apply to OP's evals RFP
cb
· · 4m read
2
2
20
Hiring pre-docs
Eva
· · 1m read
0
0
15
Would a Falsification-First Platform Be Useful to This Community?
Duarte M
· · 2m read
2
2
View more