All of Nix_Goldowsky-Dill's Comments + Replies

Use resilience, instead of imprecision, to communicate uncertainty

In a literal information-theoretic sense, a percentage has bits of information while a per-tenth has bits. This might have been what was meant?

I agree that the half of the information that is preserved is the much more valuable half, however.

2Linch1yYes, in most cases if somebody has important information that an event has XY% probability of occurring, I'd usually pay a lot more to know what X is than what Y is. (there are exceptions if most of the VoI is knowing whether you think the event is, eg, >1%, but the main point still stands).
Corporate campaigns affect 9 to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spent

First of all, great model and write-up.

One of my the biggest take aways from looking at your model was the importance of the Mean Years of Impact parameter. Looking at guesstimate's sensitivity analysis the r^2 value is about 0.75 [1], meaning approximately ~75% of the variance in the bottom line result is due to the variance estimating Mean Years of Impact.

Your choice of SCI is also significantly more optimistic than the figures that ACE or Lewis Bollard use. ACE seems to use a log-normal distribution with SCI 1.6 to 13 [2]. Using this in your mod... (read more)

7saulius2yTL;DR: Nobody seems to know what the value of mean years of impact should be, and I don't see how this uncertainty could be reduced. I think that indirect effects are more important and it would be better to research them. Good points and I'm happy you brought it up. Firstly, I know you know this, but Lewis wrote that in his view, "the assumption that these campaigns only accelerated pledges by five years is very conservative." It makes sense to use a conservative value when doing a point estimate like he did. And I did use a similar value (4 years) in my conservative estimate in Appendix 1. ACE did not really describe their choice for the value so I didn't pay much attention to it. There's also Capriati (2018) [] which assumed that THL's cage-free and broiler campaigns moved policies forward by only one year (I just added the description. But this assumes that other organizations would have still done everything they did. And even then, I don't think it is reasonable. To be honest, I think that nobody has a clue about what value to use here. Hence, everybody uses random conservative values in order for the end result to be more believable, because the estimated cost-effectiveness of campaigns is unbelievably high even with a conservative values. I did that to a degree as well. I asked some people who work on corporate campaigns what value would they use for mean years of impact. They thought that my range was reasonable, but I think they would have said that about many different ranges because it's difficult to think about. Only one person was able to say what range for mean years of impact would they use without looking at my range, and they said 40 to 100 years. If I weren't anchored by other estimates and didn't want to be a bit conservative to be more convincing to skeptics, I think I would have chosen a higher value as well, especially for the upper bound. In general, my im