I am pretty sure that attempting to usefully direct charitable resources expended for signalling purposes so they also actually do some good is one of the best ways of actually helping charitable good to happen.
Yes, this was my purpose in writing the article.
However, surely that would need to explicitly be an aim.
Yours is obviously a good article. However, perhaps because of the audience, it assumes that readers are already on board with consciously wanting to give in a manner that maximally benefits some group of others.
It seems quite posssible to me that that is a tiny fraction of current charitable donations—and that most donations take place through more “traditional” motivations.
Such people behave as though they aren’t really interested in helping others.
So: direct advice about how to do that would not be of much interest to them. Rather they act so as to best be seen as caring, kind, helpful, rich, etc. I am pretty sure that there are ways of working on capturing their donations—and putting them to better use.
Rather they act so as to best be seen as caring, kind, helpful, rich, etc. I am pretty sure that there are ways of working on capturing their donations—and putting them to better use.
I can’t see many ways of doing this besides changing the social atmosphere, such that people who donate to ineffective charities aren’t seen as doing as much good as people donating to effective charities.
Perhaps the place to start in shaping public opinion is with people who don’t donate. They have little to gain either way, so might be more willing to change their perceptions. Moreover, many contrarians will jump on board just for the sake of being able to devalue the status quo. Once non-donaters have been publicly convinced (and they are a large majority in the total population) then charitable people will be forced to change their donation strategies in order to maintain status.
Yes, this was my purpose in writing the article.
Was I insufficiently explicit?
Yours is obviously a good article. However, perhaps because of the audience, it assumes that readers are already on board with consciously wanting to give in a manner that maximally benefits some group of others.
It seems quite posssible to me that that is a tiny fraction of current charitable donations—and that most donations take place through more “traditional” motivations.
Such people behave as though they aren’t really interested in helping others. So: direct advice about how to do that would not be of much interest to them. Rather they act so as to best be seen as caring, kind, helpful, rich, etc. I am pretty sure that there are ways of working on capturing their donations—and putting them to better use.
I can’t see many ways of doing this besides changing the social atmosphere, such that people who donate to ineffective charities aren’t seen as doing as much good as people donating to effective charities.
Perhaps the place to start in shaping public opinion is with people who don’t donate. They have little to gain either way, so might be more willing to change their perceptions. Moreover, many contrarians will jump on board just for the sake of being able to devalue the status quo. Once non-donaters have been publicly convinced (and they are a large majority in the total population) then charitable people will be forced to change their donation strategies in order to maintain status.