Ah I see -- sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt! That may have been due to the curse of knowledge -- it felt obvious to me what I was trying to do with posting this question.
[ETA: Ah hm, when I go back and read the question, it does seem like your interpretation is more reasonable than I thought; I think I was trying to elicit stories, but the wording of the question doesn't match that intention (as you tried to tell me!)]
This question is oddly worded, such that it seems meant to elicit only answers about dishonesty
I don't know if I would call that "oddly worded" -- since my intention was to elicit stories about dishonesty, it's aptly worded.
There is a separate question of whether it is bad to raise negatively biased questions like this, which I'd be happy to discuss. To be honest, I didn't think of the downsides of a negatively-biased question, I just thought "huh, I wonder how much dishonesty there is in EA; maybe there are others who, like me, expected everyone to be really honest like the rest of EA, and then was surprised that this wasn't the case"
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but it feels like you knew that my intention was to raise a negatively-biased question and that it wasn't "oddly worded," and that you said this for political reasons (even though in this case, if I am correct, it would have been beneficial to be straightforward since we could have more easily begun the discussion about whether negatively-biased questions are bad to raise on the forum). I know people vary on how they feel about this a lot, but this lack of straightforwardness puts me off (but again, please correct me if I am wrong here). It's probably because I have the automatic norm of honesty.
[ETA: My thoughts here are very very tentative, and easily changed by a new consideration/datum being pointed out.]
Apparently, the Open Phil meta team was surprised by how flat the distribution of impact they measured was, and the distribution seems to only span 2-3 OOMs (importantly, this rough OOM range isn't for impact per person, which is what you would want, but the total impact of meta-EA interventions that seem like they deserve their own bucket). Though my guess is that unless you have an exceptionally good/obvious personal fit for something, the personal fit consideration leads to 0-1 OOMS, and if this is true, then it is still worth figuring out where the new projects you are considering lie on the impact distribution.
Ah I see -- sorry for not giving you the benefit of the doubt! That may have been due to the curse of knowledge -- it felt obvious to me what I was trying to do with posting this question.
[ETA: Ah hm, when I go back and read the question, it does seem like your interpretation is more reasonable than I thought; I think I was trying to elicit stories, but the wording of the question doesn't match that intention (as you tried to tell me!)]
I don't know if I would call that "oddly worded" -- since my intention was to elicit stories about dishonesty, it's aptly worded.
There is a separate question of whether it is bad to raise negatively biased questions like this, which I'd be happy to discuss. To be honest, I didn't think of the downsides of a negatively-biased question, I just thought "huh, I wonder how much dishonesty there is in EA; maybe there are others who, like me, expected everyone to be really honest like the rest of EA, and then was surprised that this wasn't the case"
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but it feels like you knew that my intention was to raise a negatively-biased question and that it wasn't "oddly worded," and that you said this for political reasons (even though in this case, if I am correct, it would have been beneficial to be straightforward since we could have more easily begun the discussion about whether negatively-biased questions are bad to raise on the forum). I know people vary on how they feel about this a lot, but this lack of straightforwardness puts me off (but again, please correct me if I am wrong here). It's probably because I have the automatic norm of honesty.
Gut-estimate: 60 days, with a 95% chance that my gut-estimate would be between 2 and 600 days if I thought about/investigated this for another day.
[ETA: My thoughts here are very very tentative, and easily changed by a new consideration/datum being pointed out.]
Apparently, the Open Phil meta team was surprised by how flat the distribution of impact they measured was, and the distribution seems to only span 2-3 OOMs (importantly, this rough OOM range isn't for impact per person, which is what you would want, but the total impact of meta-EA interventions that seem like they deserve their own bucket). Though my guess is that unless you have an exceptionally good/obvious personal fit for something, the personal fit consideration leads to 0-1 OOMS, and if this is true, then it is still worth figuring out where the new projects you are considering lie on the impact distribution.
My answer: 2