Thanks. This is helpful.
I think you're right about engaging them. I could ask them a modified version of the trolley problem like, "would you rather save 10 lives that aren't trans / diabetic / an elephant versus 1 life that is trans / diabetic / an elephant"? Then share a link to an article about how some charities are 10 or 100 times as effective as others, and another article about how cheap it is to save human or animal lives.
I've been concerned that my response would come across abrasive if I try to bring up being effective, but I think responding to them in the form of a question would help prevent that (like the trolley problem question about). (Honestly, I am frustrated with people choosing ineffective causes, but I want to tamper that down and not convey that.)
I don't think there is a strong base of rigorous evaluations...
Thanks. It helps to know that that info simply doesn't exist.
Oxfam or MSF instead of Save the Children or St. Judes Hospital. What would be the value of this... is it worth our effort? We don't know.
I'd be curious to hear your answer to this question. I asked it as a separate question in case future visitors to the forum have this question - they can find it in the search results.
I've heard from someone that Open Phil-sponsored companies are now doing essentially what you suggest. If you look at for example Anthropic's job board you can see one of their benefits is, "Optional equity donation matching at a 3:1 ratio, up to 50% of your equity grant." By donating equity they avoid income taxes, and perhaps there are other tax implications of donating tax instead of cash (I'm not an expert).
>Have you considered not spending time on those questions if you expect you can't find any good answers?
I'm not spending much time on them. I have to sort through the less-easy-to-answer questions in order to find the more-easy-to-answer ones. I am spending time on the overall project, but you would make a false assumption if you extrapolate these to all of the other questions I'm seeing. I'm posting about these specifically because they are less easy to answer. The easy-to-answer questions I'm not asking for advice on because I can already generate a good answer.
Is the overall project work worth the time? It's hard for any of us to answer that question about our work. I am currently trying to collect some data on how much my responses have changed people's minds, but it takes work to find that out.
>this... comes off... as a little bit coercive.
There's always a balance between being pushy and not saying enough when giving advice. It feels appropriate that I'm giving people advice on topics which they've asked for advice on. I wrote "steer... towards" which is something you might associate with a manager or captain who is directing people. Perhaps the words, "let them know" would have been more apt. What I'm doing is more giving information than making the decision for people.
Yeah it'd be cool if @Henrik Karlsson and team could come up with a way to defend against social bubbles while still having a trust mechanic. Is there some way to model social bubbles and show that eigenkarma or some other mechanism could prevent social bubbles but still have the property of trusting people who deserve trust?
For instance maybe users of the social network are shown anyone who has trust, and 'trust' is universal throughout the community, not just something that you have when you're connected to someone else? Would that prevent the social bubble problem, while still allowing users to filter out the low quality content from untrusted users?
We should be donating more frequently so we're happier and feel more encouraged to donate
We know we get some happiness and fulfillment from donating money to a cause we care about (for instance see https://www.science.org/content/article/secret-happiness-giving). If we could get even more joy from donating the same amount of money, then it would make us more happy (benefitting ourselves) and encourage us to keep giving more (benefitting others).
To me, there's a huge difference between donating $10,000 at once to a single charity and donating $100 one hundred times to different charities. Sort of like how our brains aren't great at telling the difference between saving 1,000,000 lives and 10,000,000 lives, even though they are hugely different, is there research saying that the number of times we donate is more conducive to our brains remembering the feeling of happiness, than the amount we donate each time? I think if there is this kind of research then more people should be talking about it, because it could make a big difference for people who are earning to give.