Consider scope insensitivity. The amount of “warm fuzzies” one gets from helping X numbers of individuals with a given problem does not scale even remotely linearly with X. Different actions to help with distinct problems, however, sum in a much closer to linear fashion (at least up to some point).
Ergo, “one person with clean water and another with a malaria net” feels intuitively like you’re doing more than “two people with clean water”.
I think it means: the sum of the feel-good points of giving one person clean water and another a malaria net will, for most people, be higher than the feel-good points of giving two people clean water.
The sum of the affect raised is greater.
I don’t understand I’m afraid, can you unpack that a bit please? Thanks.
Consider scope insensitivity. The amount of “warm fuzzies” one gets from helping X numbers of individuals with a given problem does not scale even remotely linearly with X. Different actions to help with distinct problems, however, sum in a much closer to linear fashion (at least up to some point).
Ergo, “one person with clean water and another with a malaria net” feels intuitively like you’re doing more than “two people with clean water”.
Well, not when you compare them against each other, but only when each is considered on its own: it’s like this phenomenon.
I think it means: the sum of the feel-good points of giving one person clean water and another a malaria net will, for most people, be higher than the feel-good points of giving two people clean water.