I suspect that you’re well into the measurement-error range for the things you’re talking about. It would be silly to expect a measurable change in QALY for something you spend a tiny fraction of your waking year on or a tiny fraction of your annual income on. Let alone the debate about how to adjust the quality measure based on such things.
Fortunately, at these scales, you can use anecdotal evidence of improvement in YOUR experience, for many things. Your friend’s smile or your co-founder’s continued stream of horrible ideas are plenty of reward for the low cost of the kindness you’re considering.
These actions are mostly low-impact (in comparison with saving lives, preventing environmental catastrophe, etc.) but also low-effort and frequently-occurring. The right measure might be something like “impact per unit input” or “impact per person-year”, and I suspect they then look less negligible by comparison with big-ticket effective altruism activity.
They also tend to affect people close to us about whom we care a lot. It’s not at all clear what the best ways of balancing such “near” interests against those of distant strangers are (or indeed whether “what are the best ways to do that?” is a meaningful question at all) but clearly most of us, effective altruists included, in practice give much higher weight to our own welfare and that of a small number of people we care specially for, than that of random others. So if “altruistic impact” is meant to mean the same sort of evaluation as we use for malaria nets etc., it may not be the right thing to try to measure here.
I suspect that you’re well into the measurement-error range for the things you’re talking about. It would be silly to expect a measurable change in QALY for something you spend a tiny fraction of your waking year on or a tiny fraction of your annual income on. Let alone the debate about how to adjust the quality measure based on such things.
Fortunately, at these scales, you can use anecdotal evidence of improvement in YOUR experience, for many things. Your friend’s smile or your co-founder’s continued stream of horrible ideas are plenty of reward for the low cost of the kindness you’re considering.
These actions are mostly low-impact (in comparison with saving lives, preventing environmental catastrophe, etc.) but also low-effort and frequently-occurring. The right measure might be something like “impact per unit input” or “impact per person-year”, and I suspect they then look less negligible by comparison with big-ticket effective altruism activity.
They also tend to affect people close to us about whom we care a lot. It’s not at all clear what the best ways of balancing such “near” interests against those of distant strangers are (or indeed whether “what are the best ways to do that?” is a meaningful question at all) but clearly most of us, effective altruists included, in practice give much higher weight to our own welfare and that of a small number of people we care specially for, than that of random others. So if “altruistic impact” is meant to mean the same sort of evaluation as we use for malaria nets etc., it may not be the right thing to try to measure here.
This sounds weird.
(“the dumbest thing I’ve heard this year”. This sounds more like someone snapping at someone else than ‘the ideas are part of a horrible stream’.
If the people in question are co-founders, then perhaps they think some of each other’s ideas are good.)