Would philanthropy be better off it people just threw darts, or if they stuck to tried and true ways of giving? Is not even taking a gamble on a possible great outcome for the overall good a form of genuine altruism?
Well, if you’re a subscriber to mainstream EA, the idea is that neither traditionalism nor dart-throwing is best. We need a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
If one believes that, yet also that less cost-benefit analysis is needed (or tractable) in science, that needs an explanation.
Again, I think that this post is getting at something important, but the definitions here aren’t precise enough to make it easy to apply to real issues. Like, can a billionaire use his money to buy a cost/benefit analysis of an investment of interest? Definitely.
But how can he evaluate it? Does he have to do it himself? Does he focus on creating an incentive structure for the people producing it? If so, what about Goodhart’s Law—how will he evaluate the incentive structure?
It’s “who will watch the watchmen” all the way down, but that’s a pretty defeatist perspective. My guess is that institutions do best when they adopt a variety of metrics and evaluative methods to make decisions, possibly including some randomization just to keep things spicy.
I imagine most good deeds or true altruism takes place on non-measurable scales. It’s the thought that counts right? A smile goes a long way, how can you measure a smile, or positive energy. Whether you throw a dart or follow a non dart follow method, maybe the positive energy put out means something, especially now.
Look at all the good Bill Gates does that I think is effective altruism and he gets vilified . It’s a weird thing. I remember watching a patriot act episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg
You’re doing something (a good thing) that we call Babble. Freely coming up with ideas that all circle around a central question, without worrying too much about whether they’re silly, important, obvious, or any of the other reasons we hold stuff back.
I’d suggest going further. Feel free to use this comment thread (or make a shortform) to throw out ideas about “why philanthropy might benefit from more (or less) cost/benefit analysis”.
We often suggest trying to come up with 50 ideas all in one go. Have at it!
Would philanthropy be better off it people just threw darts, or if they stuck to tried and true ways of giving? Is not even taking a gamble on a possible great outcome for the overall good a form of genuine altruism?
Well, if you’re a subscriber to mainstream EA, the idea is that neither traditionalism nor dart-throwing is best. We need a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.
If one believes that, yet also that less cost-benefit analysis is needed (or tractable) in science, that needs an explanation.
Again, I think that this post is getting at something important, but the definitions here aren’t precise enough to make it easy to apply to real issues. Like, can a billionaire use his money to buy a cost/benefit analysis of an investment of interest? Definitely.
But how can he evaluate it? Does he have to do it himself? Does he focus on creating an incentive structure for the people producing it? If so, what about Goodhart’s Law—how will he evaluate the incentive structure?
It’s “who will watch the watchmen” all the way down, but that’s a pretty defeatist perspective. My guess is that institutions do best when they adopt a variety of metrics and evaluative methods to make decisions, possibly including some randomization just to keep things spicy.
I imagine most good deeds or true altruism takes place on non-measurable scales. It’s the thought that counts right? A smile goes a long way, how can you measure a smile, or positive energy. Whether you throw a dart or follow a non dart follow method, maybe the positive energy put out means something, especially now.
Look at all the good Bill Gates does that I think is effective altruism and he gets vilified . It’s a weird thing. I remember watching a patriot act episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9CFBlLOcg
Welcome to LW, by the way :)
You’re doing something (a good thing) that we call Babble. Freely coming up with ideas that all circle around a central question, without worrying too much about whether they’re silly, important, obvious, or any of the other reasons we hold stuff back.
I’d suggest going further. Feel free to use this comment thread (or make a shortform) to throw out ideas about “why philanthropy might benefit from more (or less) cost/benefit analysis”.
We often suggest trying to come up with 50 ideas all in one go. Have at it!