EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Answer by Michael St Jules 🔸3
0
0

I suspect experience sampling is much more costly and time-consuming to get data on than alternatives, and there's probably much less data. Life satisfaction or other simple survey questions about subjective wellbeing might be good enough proxies, and there's already a lot of available data out there.

Here's a pretty comprehensive post on using subjective wellbeing:

A Happiness Manifesto: Why and How Effective Altruism Should Rethink its Approach to Maximising Human Welfare by Michael Plant

Another good place to read more about this is https://whatworkswellbeing.org/our-work/measuring-evaluating/

Reply
See in context
by Milan Griffes
2 min read3 answers 7

58

Cause prioritizationBuilding effective altruismGlobal health & developmentAdjusted life yearSubjective wellbeing
Frontpage
Show all topics

Background: Earlier this year, I attended a great presentation by Natália Mendoça about experience sampling. Here's the deck from her presentation.

A takeaway from the presentation was that QALYs are constructed in a way that skews cause prioritization towards particular causes. Alternative metrics have different skews, so using an alternative metric could lead to very different cause prioritization.

For example, under the QALY framework, one year with "some problems walking about" is considered to be about as bad as one year with "moderate anxiety or depression."

For anyone who's had some experience with depression or anxiety, as well as with "some problems walking about," it should be obvious that moderate depression or anxiety are (much) worse than moderate mobility problems, pound for pound. (Please reach out if you disagree with this, I want to pick your brain if you do.)

An alternative metric to QALYs is called experience sampling. Last month, Natália posted about experience sampling on the Forum. The post was moderately upvoted, though no one commented on it.

A takeaway from that post is that rolling out an experience-sampling framework seems very tractable.

This research direction seems like plausibly a high priority for EA, as basing cause prioritization on a different metric could lead to notably different priority causes.

In particular, experience sampling appears to give a higher weight to mental health disorders than QALYs does, so it's plausible that under an experience-sampling framework, mental health interventions would be higher priority than global health interventions.

Given the potential magnitude of this delta in prioritization (between the experience-sampling & QALY frameworks), it's surprising to me that there's not been more interest in investigating alternatives to the QALY in the EA community.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the experience-sampling method is superior to QALYs. I'm claiming that it is constructed in an equally plausibly way to the QALY, and that it probably results in drastically different cause prioritization. One potentially robust path forward could be to split the difference between prioritization implied by QALYs and prioritization implied by experience sampling.

[Disclosure: In February 2019, I corresponded about the experience-sampling idea with Alex Foster of the EA Meta Fund. He said my points were "certainly quite compelling," but the correspondence fell off.

I heard later from another source that the EA Meta Fund didn't end up getting excited about the idea, though they didn't say why not.]

58

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
New Answer
New Comment


3 Answers sorted by
Top

MichaelPlant

22
0
0

Three thoughts. First, it's not really the case that EAs use QALYs/DALYs. GWWC and GiveWell used to use them , but GWWC no longer exists as an independent entity and GiveWell now use their own metric. 80k mostly focus on the far future and so QALYs/DALYs aren't of primary interest. Have I missed someone? I think Founders Pledge do use them. Not sure what goes on 'under the hood' for The Life You Can Save's recommendations.

Second, even if you wanted to use the experience sampling method (ESM) as your measure of wellbeing, you couldn't because there isn't enough data on it. There are only two academic projects which have tried to collect data en masse - trackyourhappiness and mappiness. The former is now defunct (Killingsworth works for Microsoft now I believe) and the latter isn't actively being used (I spoke to the creator, George MacKerron a couple of months ago) I discuss this in a previous forum post. The best I think we can do, if we want to use subjective wellbeing (SWB) measure is life satisfaction.

Third, I think ESM is the theoretically ideal measure of happiness and thus EA - indeed, everyone - should use it as the outcome measure of impact (I assume wellbeing consists in happiness). What follows is that ESM is superior to all other measures of wellbeing, including QALYs/DALYs, wealth, etc. I'm hoping to do some research using ESM at some point in the future if I can.

Milan Griffes7
0
0
I think ESM is the theoretically ideal measure of happiness and thus EA - indeed, everyone - should use it as the outcome measure of impact (I assume wellbeing consists in happiness).

As you laid out in this comment, it looks like experience sampling is not getting strong uptake in academia.

Here's a short argument:

  • (a) Experience-sampling is theoretically the best way to measure happiness
  • (b) It's feasible to build experience-sampling infrastructure, e.g. Natália's mobile app proposal
  • (c) Academics & other stakeholders aren't planning
... (read more)
Reply
4
MichaelPlant
I think your short argument misses the point. The obstacle isn't the lack of such infrastructure - I imagine academics could use the existing tools if they asked politely or created their own - but the lack of demand for such infrastructure.
8
Milan Griffes
I'm imagining that EA could provide the demand for such infrastructure (EA cause prioritizers would be its customers).
Milan Griffes5
0
0
First, it's not really the case that EAs use QALYs/DALYs. GWWC and GiveWell used to use them, but GWWC no longer exists as an independent entity and GiveWell now use their own metric.

This is a good point.

I think that GWWC & GiveWell's earlier use of QALYs created a lot of path dependence, such that current EA prioritization remains influenced by the QALY framework even though no organization explicitly uses it at present.

Considering an alternate timeline can help draw out the path dependence:

Imagine a world where the DCP project started in 2
... (read more)
Reply
5
MichaelPlant
I find this to be the most plausible explanation of what has happened. Your counterfactual story is rather helpful!
Sindy1
0
0

A minor correction: GiveWell uses DALY to measure mortality and morbidity. (Well, for malaria they actually don't look at the impact of prevention on morbidity, only mortality, since the former is relatively small -- see row 22 here.) Maybe what you had in mind is their "moral weights" which they use to convert between life years and income.


Like cole_haus points out below, ESM's results would enter disability weights (which are used to construct DALYs) to affect how health interventions are prioritized. Currently disability weights invo... (read more)

Reply

cole_haus

9
0
0

I don't really see ESM as being in opposition to QALYs. It seems like it's a method that you would use as an input in QALY weight determinations. Wikipedia lists some of the current methods for deriving QALY weights as:

Time-trade-off (TTO): Respondents are asked to choose between remaining in a state of ill health for a period of time, or being restored to perfect health but having a shorter life expectancy.
Standard gamble (SG): Respondents are asked to choose between remaining in a state of ill health for a period of time, or choosing a medical intervention which has a chance of either restoring them to perfect health, or killing them.
Visual analogue scale (VAS): Respondents are asked to rate a state of ill health on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 representing being dead and 100 representing perfect health. This method has the advantage of being the easiest to ask, but is the most subjective.

There's also the "day reconstruction method" (DRM). The Oxford Handbook of Happiness talks about ESM, DRM and others relevant measurement approaches at various points.

I'd guess the trouble with using ESM, DRM and some other methods like them for QALY weights is it's hard to isolate the causal effect of particular conditions using these methods.

Derek1
0
0
I don't really see ESM as being in opposition to QALYs. It seems like it's a method that you would use as an input in QALY weight determinations.

It can be, yes, but QALYs trade off length and quality of life, whereas ESM would only tell you about QoL/wellbeing. There would still need to be some other process (or some major assumptions) to anchor the results on the QALY (or DALY) scale.

Reply

Michael St Jules 🔸

3
0
0

I suspect experience sampling is much more costly and time-consuming to get data on than alternatives, and there's probably much less data. Life satisfaction or other simple survey questions about subjective wellbeing might be good enough proxies, and there's already a lot of available data out there.

Here's a pretty comprehensive post on using subjective wellbeing:

A Happiness Manifesto: Why and How Effective Altruism Should Rethink its Approach to Maximising Human Welfare by Michael Plant

Another good place to read more about this is https://whatworkswellbeing.org/our-work/measuring-evaluating/

Comments7
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
PeterMcCluskey16
0
0

>For anyone who's had some experience with depression or anxiety, as well as with "some problems walking about," it should be obvious that moderate depression or anxiety are (much) worse than moderate mobility problems, pound for pound.

That's obvious for rich people, but not at all obvious for someone who risks hunger as a result of mobility problems.

Reply
Milan Griffes2
0
0

This is a great point.

From my (limited) experience witnessing poverty in the developing world, it's not clear to what extent moderate mobility problems increase risk of hunger.

They certainly don't help, but in many developing-world contexts, it seems like there's a measure of social surplus / social safety net which provides some buffer against hunger for people with chronic health problems.

I wonder if there's a paper on this...

Reply
Jeff Kaufman 🔸13
0
0

I tried experience sampling myself for about a year and a half (intro, conclusion) and it made me much more skeptical of the system. I'm just not that sure how happy I am at any given point:

When I first started rating my happiness on a 1-10 scale I didn't feel like I was very good at it. At the time I thought I might get better with practice, but I think I'm actually getting worse at it. Instead of really thinking "how do I feel right now?" it's really hard not to just think "in past situations like this I've put down '6' so I should put down '6' now".

And:

I don't have my phone ping me during the night, because I don't want it to wake me up. Before having a kid this worked properly: I'd plug in my phone, which turns off pings, promptly fall asleep, wake up in the morning, unplug my phone. Now, though, my sleep is generally interrupted several times a night. Time spent waiting to see if the baby falls back asleep on her own, or soothing her back to sleep if she doesn't, or lying awake at 4am because it's hard to fall back asleep when you've had 7hr and just spent an hour walking around and bouncing the baby; none of these are counted. On the whole, these experiences are much less enjoyable than my average; if the baby started sleeping through the night such that none of these were needed anymore I wouldn't see that as a loss at all. Which means my data is biased upward. I'm curious how happiness sampling studies have handled this; people with insomnia would be in a similar situation.

I agree that DALY/QALY measurements aren't great either, though.

Reply
Milan Griffes4
0
0
Instead of really thinking "how do I feel right now?" it's really hard not to just think "in past situations like this I've put down '6' so I should put down '6' now".

Interesting. I've done experience-sampling to track my mood for about 3 years, and haven't noticed this dynamic. (It generally feels like I'm answering the question "how do I feel right now?")

Just another data point.

Before having a kid this worked properly...

This is a great point. I don't have children & this hasn't been a problem for me. Totally makes sense that this comes up once you're a parent.

I agree that DALY/QALY measurements aren't great either, though.

My intuition is that aggregating the results of the two methods would outperform either method individually, because they skew in different directions.

Reply
agdfoster8
0
0
[Disclosure: In February 2019, I corresponded about the experience-sampling idea with Alex Foster of the EA Meta Fund. He said my points were "certainly quite compelling," but the correspondence fell off.

Please note that the content of my correspondence with Milan was exploratory but primarily from a position of skepticism. Whilst technically accurate I find this quote to be misleading and not very good form.

Reply
Milan Griffes4
0
0

Sorry, I wasn't trying to misrepresent you.

My story about what happened here:

  • Over email, I pitched a "compare QALYs to experience-sampling" project
  • You were initially skeptical about the idea
  • Over the course of our correspondence, you updated to being less skeptical about the project, though not totally sold on it
  • Eventually, you got busy & the correspondence stopped

Does that match your story?

Reply
agdfoster3
0
0

That's fine! Thanks.

Reply
More from Milan Griffes
77
[Cause Exploration Prizes] Jhana meditation
Milan Griffes, Sandra Sobanska
· · 14m read
7
7
62
Is preventing child abuse a plausible Cause X?
Q
Milan Griffes
· · 1m read
34
34
56
What grants has Carl Shulman's discretionary fund made?
Q
Milan Griffes
· · 1m read
11
11
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
Recent opportunities in Cause prioritization
77
80,000 Hours for Global Development
Benh713
· · 4m read
5
5
13
Primers for charity evaluation?
Q
James-Hartree-Law
· · 1m read
5
5
14
Lafiya’s 2024 Review, Updated CEA and Plans for 2025–2026
celinekamsteeg, Klau Chmielowska
· · 13m read
0
0
View more