Doing random draws of the highest impact grants and making a few grant makers evaluate them without interacting seems like an easy (but expensive) test. I expect grant makers to talk enthusiastically with their colleagues about their top grants, so grant makers might already know if this idea is worthwhile or not. But yes, if agreement is low, grant makers should try to know each others tastes, and forward grants they think another grant maker would think of as high impact. If grant makers spend a lot of time training specific world views this seems like a more important thing to explore. It might be worth checking if people sometimes mistake high impact grants for marginal grants. Another small random draw would probably be decent here too (Sharing experiences of high impact grants with your colleagues is a mechanism prone to a lot of selection effects, so it might be worth checking if this causes considerable oversight) I expect none of this to be new/interesting for LTFF(Feedback about writing style and content is much appreciated, as this is my first real comment on the EA forum)
For reference malaria killed 600.000 in 2020 according to WHO, so it is pretty surprising to me that I've never heard of snakebites given that they kill about 1/6th of what malaria does (not to mention the handicapping). Super interesting writeup, I'm glad that my horizon is now a little wider.
"Don't think about things well" is probably what caused it. It makes it hard not to read your post as NT EA's being stupid. If you removed that, your comment would have basically the same meaning, except it would be because of lack of exposure (or not taking weird ideas seriously) and not something that feels like a proxy for stupidity.Disclaimer: I didn't downvote you