I think there’s some real distinction here in terms of donor motivation and expectation, but I’m not convinced that this cut is quite at the joint. The example given would be far enough outside of expectation that both types of donor would be surprised, and both would react to explanations fairly similarly (if it does further the ends of the charity, accept it; if it’s stupid/unlikely to work, or for non-aligned reasons, reject it and stop donating).
Categorizing donors in order to make sure you’re serving their needs is worth something. But almost all charities (I’ve been more involved with regional and local food charities than rationality ones) take great care to frame their choices in terms of mission, regardless of how they think of donors. They do tend to communicate somewhat differently for capital campaigns and other directed giving to subsets of the mission, but even then it’s usually more fine-grained than legible vs trusting.
edit: you address this a little in the fact that CFAR has a fuzzier mission than some other charities. I suspect that’s key—I don’t work with many charities that are personality-based or have significant patrons donating for “people I like who seem to do smart things” reasons. I think I’d recommend that CFAR work that way too, even if you have significant patronage income, you should strive to ensure you’re spending effectively and legibly toward outcomes. Honestly, you should do this to avoid self-deception as much as to satisfy donors.
I think part of the difference here might be that you’re thinking more in terms of the narrow(er) subset of explicit charities, whereas I’m sort of looking at:
Charities
Startups
Grants
Personal donations
Personal gifts
… as all being part of a single set, and trying to model that?
I agree that if you limit yourself to just e.g. legal nonprofits, the distinction made above is much less of an explainer.
I think there’s some real distinction here in terms of donor motivation and expectation, but I’m not convinced that this cut is quite at the joint. The example given would be far enough outside of expectation that both types of donor would be surprised, and both would react to explanations fairly similarly (if it does further the ends of the charity, accept it; if it’s stupid/unlikely to work, or for non-aligned reasons, reject it and stop donating).
Categorizing donors in order to make sure you’re serving their needs is worth something. But almost all charities (I’ve been more involved with regional and local food charities than rationality ones) take great care to frame their choices in terms of mission, regardless of how they think of donors. They do tend to communicate somewhat differently for capital campaigns and other directed giving to subsets of the mission, but even then it’s usually more fine-grained than legible vs trusting.
edit: you address this a little in the fact that CFAR has a fuzzier mission than some other charities. I suspect that’s key—I don’t work with many charities that are personality-based or have significant patrons donating for “people I like who seem to do smart things” reasons. I think I’d recommend that CFAR work that way too, even if you have significant patronage income, you should strive to ensure you’re spending effectively and legibly toward outcomes. Honestly, you should do this to avoid self-deception as much as to satisfy donors.
I think part of the difference here might be that you’re thinking more in terms of the narrow(er) subset of explicit charities, whereas I’m sort of looking at:
Charities
Startups
Grants
Personal donations
Personal gifts
… as all being part of a single set, and trying to model that?
I agree that if you limit yourself to just e.g. legal nonprofits, the distinction made above is much less of an explainer.