Utility Weight Results

Results from Scott's utility/QALY survey [done 'at 4 AM and not double-checked']. Notable bits: a weird last-name imbalance among respondents (93 A-M vs 34 N-Z) and an unexplained Juneau spike; people rate death worse than prison/North-Korea (anti-death); singles overvalue an 'ideal' relationship (1.54x) while the partnered undervalue singlehood (0.85x) — non-reciprocal; the three utility-elicitation methods correlate haphazardly per-question but their averages agree at >0.9; and the survey's blindness utility weight (.63) matches the published Tufts range (.4-.69), a mild external validation.

Quality 54 · Solid. 54 — Solid. A competent, honestly-caveated survey-results post with a few real observations (the method-averaging convergence, the blindness validation), but mostly data-reporting and explicitly rough ('4 AM, not double-checked').

Claude’s paradigm shift 25 · Slight. 25 — Slight; routine survey reporting.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 — within-blog utility-measurement methodology; no reach.