if X is such a great option, why is it not more popular?
I begin to suspect that rationalists should simply delete this question from their mental vocabularies. Most popular things are optimized to be popular with an audience that doesn’t know how to resist manipulation (but thinks itself invincible, in accordance with the bias blind-spot bias); this gives rise to a case of the majority is always wrong.
I’m not sure that applies here: for QWERTY keyboards network effects are positive—the more people use them, the better (i.e. in this case, more convenient) it is for me to use them, but for charities they are positive (so long as my social circles aren’t hipster enough) for status, but neutral (for me at least—YMMV) for fuzzies and negative (diminishing returns, finite room for more funding) for utilons.
I second the suspicious feeling. It boils down to one question: if Kiva is such a great option, why is it not more popular?
I begin to suspect that rationalists should simply delete this question from their mental vocabularies. Most popular things are optimized to be popular with an audience that doesn’t know how to resist manipulation (but thinks itself invincible, in accordance with the bias blind-spot bias); this gives rise to a case of the majority is always wrong.
I’m not sure that applies here: for QWERTY keyboards network effects are positive—the more people use them, the better (i.e. in this case, more convenient) it is for me to use them, but for charities they are positive (so long as my social circles aren’t hipster enough) for status, but neutral (for me at least—YMMV) for fuzzies and negative (diminishing returns, finite room for more funding) for utilons.