As my toddler continues to grow, my wife and I are reaching the point that all parents do (if not already done) where we have to decide what to do about his education. Obviously education and life aren't fixed so there is always a necessary amount of flexibility to any decision. 

My issue (UK focus): Broadly there are three stages in the UK - 1) nursery, 2) primary school, 3) secondary/high school. With the world becoming increasingly uncertain and complex, I have very little confidence that any current institution (in stage 2 and 3) is set up and run well enough to prepare a child for the future - beyond the basic reading and writing skills. As a small example for instance, there is a shocking lack of investment in both resources and capability on key topics such as computer science, maths, engineering, rationality, and political science. However, given this is a quick post I won't go into the depth of my reasoning of why I feel there is a structural problem with the education system that would be almost impractical (or at least, too politically costly) to resolve. To add some potential credence, this isn't just wandering thoughts but they have been generated through the experiences of multiple family (including my wife) and friends who work/worked in primary or secondary schools.

My question: What are others' thoughts on this (both parents and non-parents)? Do you have similar concerns? Do you not? If you do, what are your intended actions to mitigate?

Nice post, and I like the short snappy sections for quick reading - thanks!

My main reflection is whether this is actually a neglected? Exercise is a huge industry, and I feel the psychological benefits as well as the physical are quite often utilised in marketing and advertising (though I may be biased given I go to the gym quite regularly). Perhaps the specific link to depression is leveraged less, but I feel its there by proxy in a lot of cases.

I guess a fairer question would be: what would need to exist, that doesn't currently, for this to be assessed as not a neglected issue?

This is an important reflection, and one I've found myself querying when seeing various programs claim they are hyper effective. Incredibly well performing interventions are rare, but we might expect to see a higher number of them to be showcased on this forum given there is already a selection bias from the membership/readership here. 

However, I do feel the community naturally creates an incentive to inflate (conciously or not) the CEA of interventions - afterall, if you aren't working on something which can compete with AMF, then why take money away from that? The fix to this being you live in the ambiguity of your intervention and argue that under certain assumptions, your program could be better. 

As you effectively note, the problem is could (a priori) judgments are riddled with reasoning risks and errors, which is why I feel the community could do more to better support and also challenge reasoning methods (cognitive and computational). For example, lots of posts mention key uncertainties people have on their interventions, but they often don't state the second order probabilities of them (not even GiveWell does this consistently) along with how much that uncertainty fundamentally underpins the intervention. A relatively simple fix, which could be a community norm. 

I agree - though not so much on everything gets funded anyway point.

I think there is also a wider meta question which is what is the best use of EA's marginal time/energy/money. My (highly unjustified) judgement would be that people donating for such causes aren't motivated by effectiveness, or at least are motivated much more by emotion. So the likelihood of changing their donation based on an argument around effectiveness may be quite hard to achieve.

I'm also not sure on the scale of difference between the worst and best charities for such causes (i.e. is the best cancer charity 100x better than the worst)? It'd be great to know, but assuming not, this would also reduce the benefit of any success.

A more effective solution achieve the same goal by proxy would seem to be just influencing the existing major funds or initiatives to focus more on the marginal impact of every £ they receive.

Thanks for posting this!

I want to highlight up front that I am a big supporter of any work that aims to improve institutional decision making. I believe it’s a highly impactful area with unparalleled potential given the decision power (in both terms of spending and benefit potential) of large institutions is immense. I personally feel there’s a big moral and EA argument in supporting solutions that could practically deliver benefits (even small returns given the scale).

In terms of cleaner questions upfront which get to the heart of my uncertainties:

1. How much will the elements combined improve the quality of decisions that are made? Tied to this - which elements could be cut if needed for time without undermining the benefits you’d expect?
2. Are there examples of previous decisions that have been made that have been run through this process, to show what different outcomes would have been generated? 
3. Given the time investment needed to implement this process, why is it advantageous over existing solutions that have been shown to provide substantial improvements in decision making quality (under experimentation) but often face complaints over needing significant time and expertise investment (e.g. training on and aggregating Bayesian models)? 

Further reflections if interested/useful
Having read your paper, I have some concerns over how the solution can be implemented at a beneficial scale. I raise this particularly as a number of the problems you’ve mentioned in the White Paper (e.g. unstructured/limited consultations with experts or limited analysis of the problem space) are driven more by time constraints rather than a clear framework of how to do it. This is an important consideration as planning for catastrophic risks is only half of the problem - we can’t consistently (or at all) predict black swan events and thus decision making at speed in crises is incredibly (if not more) important, as Covid showed us.

Given decision science research, I query the heavy reliance on expert judgment as a key node to improve the predictive accuracy, as there’s a healthy body of evidence that suggests quality of reasoning as opposed to domain expertise is a better predictor for such accuracy. Your White Paper actually seems to account for this by proxy when it highlights specific reasoning methods to drive improved accuracy (e.g. IDEA framework). 

In addition, I’m less sure how beneficial the democratic/deliberation process with citizens is for the risks you are targeting. The examples you note (such as abortion and LGBTQ+ issues) are primarily social issues which lend themselves well to citizen assemblies given they are moral in nature. On the other side, planning policy is quite heavily democratised in the UK and arguably has led to very bad outcomes given wider economic or societal benefits from construction are less tangible than personal concerns around changes to the local area. These externalities aren’t always accurately priced into people’s incentives and thus their judgements aren’t necessarily what’s best for society. Do you see a similar issue for catastrophic risks/how will you mitigate if so?

With a number of charity evaluators recommendations coming out over the last few days/weeks, has there been any further development on AI safety/GCR evaluator(s)? A need that was raised in the post below (I don't know if best EA forum practice is to ressurrect an old thread or not, so I apologies if it's better I just comment in there).

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/QahDdRzpPuat8ujx2/why-isn-t-there-a-charity-evaluator-for-longtermist-projects

A unique and interesting concept.

I can see the logic but I’d suspect the payments for meetings would need to be quite low in most instances as I wonder whether you create weird incentives where time strapped high-in-demand people slap high fees on meetings and people who have limited funds have yet another barrier to meeting such people. Could also make some very moral conscious people maximise the charge they put on the meeting slot given the time:cost benefit is now not just their own time, but also the opportunity cost of what someone else was willing to pay.

How do you see mitigating the risk that it’ll no longer just be your idea that gets you through the door, but the depth of your pockets?

Separately, am I correct that there is no funds to create the MVP? It feels like something which a few thousand £/$’s could build from a reputable programmer? Would that be useful and possible to get the concept off the ground and able to be tested?

Very fair identification of some sloppy wording by me there with "increasing". Apologies, my main focus was on the relatively high risk. Though as you've noted the WSJ survey had a median probability of 50%, and Forbes (link below) notes the NY Fed recession probability indicator is at 56% (albeit decreased from its previous 66%) - an unusually accurate indicator. Assessments which should be making central banks and economic ministries a little nervous.

Even with some forecasters reducing their probabilities, the relative risk and high level of uncertainties underpinning them would suggest to me it'd be a good time to review plans to weather any downturn.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/is-a-recession-coming/

Do EA funding organisations have contingency plans (I use the term loosely) to manage downside risks to cash-flow in the eventuality of a recession? With the possibility of a recession in the coming 6-18 months seemingly increasing, it would be prudent to model the scenarios and think through how to smooth the funding profile if needed. Given cash is already constrained post the collapse of "that will shall not be named", it feels a recession (and thus implications to donations/value of investments etc.) could compound existing funding issues. I don't expect to get a financial plan from any of the big funders, but I thought worth raising the question in the low probability scenario it isn't already part of their modelling.

Interesting post, thank you!

Your analysis on Congress/National level legislation is particularly telling as it seems to show that if you can survive the next political cycle/election, then the probability of the legislation remaining in place becomes almost static between 40-60% (apart from a drop at the 20-35 year mark).

This fits anecdotally with my experience and aligns with the reality that actually changing legislation can be incredibly tricky, especially on policies that are controversial within a political party. See the U.K.s 0.7% international aid legislation as an example.

Does your research look at any potential practical predictors (beyond neglectfulness) of a policy sticking for longer (such as complexity of language, cross-party support, integration in larger bill)? I’m out so haven’t read the full paper, but do just point me to that if it’s in there and I’ll look later!