A hypothetical charity running programs like VillageReach’s but which embezzled 95% of its budget at the cost of correspondingly greatly reduced the cost-effectiveness would still be doing far more good per dollar than the Make-A-Wish Foundation or the least effective developing world charities do.
This is a good sentence (and would make a fine conclusion—I think generalised conclusions don’t play on availability bias nearly enough) but there’s a bit of a problem in the middle there.
Also: you have caused me to update my beliefs about how to evaluate charities, and also you have caused me to desire to donate more and more often.
This is a good sentence (and would make a fine conclusion—I think generalised conclusions don’t play on availability bias nearly enough) but there’s a bit of a problem in the middle there.
Thanks for the catch. [Edit: Fixed]
Also: you have caused me to update my beliefs about how to evaluate charities, and also you have caused me to desire to donate more and more often.
This is a good sentence (and would make a fine conclusion—I think generalised conclusions don’t play on availability bias nearly enough) but there’s a bit of a problem in the middle there.
Also: you have caused me to update my beliefs about how to evaluate charities, and also you have caused me to desire to donate more and more often.
Thanks for the catch. [Edit: Fixed]
Interesting; good to know.