I would agree with your reasoning if CFAR claimed that they can reliably turn people into altruists free of cognitive biases within the span of their four-day workshop. If they claimed that and were correct in that, then it shouldn’t matter whether they (a) require up-front payment and offer a refund or (b) have people decide what to pay after the workshop, since a bias-free altruist would make end up paying the same in either case.
It’s not so much what CFAR is claiming as what their goals are and which outcomes they prefer.
The goal is to create people who are effective, rational do-gooders. I see four main possibilities here:
First, that they succeed in doing so.
Second, that they fail and go out of business.
Third, that they become a sort of self-help cult like the Landmark Forum, i.e. they charge people money without delivering much benefit.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
Obviously (1) is the top choice. But if (1) does not occur, which would they prefer -- (2), or some combination of (3) and (4)? By charging money up front, they are on the path to (3) or (4) as a second choice. Which goes against their stated goal.
So let’s assume that they do not claim to be able to turn people into effective rational do-gooders. The fact remains that they hope to do so. And one needs to ask, what do they hope for as a second choice?
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational. This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders. Their goal is not to create effective, rational do-gooders out of blank slates but make valuable marginal increases in this combination of traits, often by making people who already rank highly in these areas even better.
They also use the same workshops to make people in general more effective and rational, which they can charge money for to fund the workshops, and gives them more data to test their training methods on. That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational.
I wasn’t aware that this was the strategy; perhaps I read the original post too quickly.
This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders.
Well are they attempting to turn non-do-gooders into do-gooders?
That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
Perhaps, but that strikes me as a dangerous first step towards a kind of mission creep. Towards a scenario (3) or (4).
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
It’s not so much what CFAR is claiming as what their goals are and which outcomes they prefer.
The goal is to create people who are effective, rational do-gooders. I see four main possibilities here:
First, that they succeed in doing so.
Second, that they fail and go out of business.
Third, that they become a sort of self-help cult like the Landmark Forum, i.e. they charge people money without delivering much benefit.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
Obviously (1) is the top choice. But if (1) does not occur, which would they prefer -- (2), or some combination of (3) and (4)? By charging money up front, they are on the path to (3) or (4) as a second choice. Which goes against their stated goal.
So let’s assume that they do not claim to be able to turn people into effective rational do-gooders. The fact remains that they hope to do so. And one needs to ask, what do they hope for as a second choice?
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational. This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders. Their goal is not to create effective, rational do-gooders out of blank slates but make valuable marginal increases in this combination of traits, often by making people who already rank highly in these areas even better.
They also use the same workshops to make people in general more effective and rational, which they can charge money for to fund the workshops, and gives them more data to test their training methods on. That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
I wasn’t aware that this was the strategy; perhaps I read the original post too quickly.
Well are they attempting to turn non-do-gooders into do-gooders?
Perhaps, but that strikes me as a dangerous first step towards a kind of mission creep. Towards a scenario (3) or (4).
Same problem.