This post and the reactions to it will be an interesting test for my competing models about the value of giving detailed explanations to supporters. Here are just two of them:
One model says that detailed communication with supporters is good because it allows you to make your case for why your charity matters, and thus increase the donors’ expectation that your charity can turn money into goods that they value, like poverty reduction or AI risk reduction.
Another model says that detailed communication with supporters is bad because (1) supporters are generally giving out of positive affect toward the organization, and (2) that positive affect can’t be increased much once they grok the mission enough to start donating, but (3) the positive affect they feel toward the charity can be overwhelmed by the absolute number of the organization’s statements with which they disagree, and (4) more detailed communication with supporters increases this absolute number more quickly than limited communication that repeats the same points again and again (e.g. in a newsletter).
I worry that model #2 may be closer to the truth, in part because of things like (Dilbert-creator) Scott Adams’ account of why he decided to blog less:
I hoped that people who loved the blog would spill over to people who read Dilbert, and make my flagship product stronger. Instead, I found that if I wrote nine highly popular posts, and one that a reader disagreed with, the reaction was inevitably “I can never read Dilbert again because of what you wrote in that one post.” Every blog post reduced my income, even if 90% of the readers loved it.
An issue that SI must inevitably confront is how much rationality it will assume of its target population of donors. If it simply wanted to raise as much money as possible, there are, I expect, all kinds of Dark techniques it could use (of which decreasing communication is only the tip of the iceberg). The problem is that SI also wants to raise the sanity waterline, since that is integral to its larger mission—and it’s hard (not to mention hypocritical) to do that while simultaneously using fundraising methods that depend on the waterline being below a certain level among its supporters.
How do you expect to determine the effects of this information on donations from the comments made by supporters? In my case, for instance, I’ve been fairly encouraged by the explanations like this that have been coming out of SI (and had been somewhat annoyed by the lack of them previously), but my comments tend to sound negative because I tend to focus on things that I’m still not completely satisfied with.
Another model says that detailed communication with supporters is bad because (1) supporters are generally giving out of positive affect toward the organization, and (2) that positive affect can’t be increased much once they grok the mission enough to start donating, but (3) the positive affect they feel toward the charity can be overwhelmed by the absolute number of the organization’s statements with which they disagree, and (4) more detailed communication with supporters increases this absolute number more quickly than limited communication that repeats the same points again and again (e.g. in a newsletter).
As an example datapoint Eliezer’s reply to Holden caused a net decrease (not necessarily an enormous one) in both my positive affect for and abstract evaluation of the merit of the organisation based off one particularly bad argument that shocked me. It prompted some degree (again not necessarily a large degree) of updating towards the possibility that SingInst could suffer the same kind of mind-killed thinking and behavior I expect from other organisations in the class of pet-cause idealistic charities. (And that matters more for FAI oriented charities than save-the-puppies charities, with the whole think-right or destroy the world thing.)
When allowing for the possibility that I am wrong and Eliezer is right you have to expect most other supporters to be wrong a non-trivial proportion of the time too so too much talking is going to have negative side effects.
Which issue are you talking about? Is there already a comments thread about it on Eliezer’s post?
Found it. It was nested too deep in a comment tree.
The particular line was:
I would ask him what he knows now, in advance, that all those sane intelligent people will miss. I don’t see how you could (well-justifiedly) access that epistemic state.
The position is something I think it is best I don’t mention again until (unless) I get around to writing the post “Predicting Failure Without Details” to express the position clearly with references and what limits apply to that kind of reasoning.
I can think of a really big example favoring model #2 within the atheist community. On the oyher hand, you and Eliezer have written so much about your views on these matters that the “detailed communication” toothpaste may not be going back in the tube. And this piece made me much more inclined to support SI, particularly the disjunctive vs. Conjunctive section which did a lot for worries raised by things Eliezer has said in the past.
Is it possible that supporters might update on communicativeness, separately from updating on what you actually have to say? Generally when I see the SI talking to people, I feel the warm fuzziness before I actually read what you’re saying. It just seems like people might associate “detailed engagement with supporters and critics” with the reference class of “good organizations”.
Presumably, even under model #1, the extent to which detailed communication increases donor expectations of my charity’s ability to turn money into valuable goods depends a lot on their pre-existing expectations, the level of expectations justified by the reality, and how effective the communication is at conveying the reality.
This post and the reactions to it will be an interesting test for my competing models about the value of giving detailed explanations to supporters. Here are just two of them:
One model says that detailed communication with supporters is good because it allows you to make your case for why your charity matters, and thus increase the donors’ expectation that your charity can turn money into goods that they value, like poverty reduction or AI risk reduction.
Another model says that detailed communication with supporters is bad because (1) supporters are generally giving out of positive affect toward the organization, and (2) that positive affect can’t be increased much once they grok the mission enough to start donating, but (3) the positive affect they feel toward the charity can be overwhelmed by the absolute number of the organization’s statements with which they disagree, and (4) more detailed communication with supporters increases this absolute number more quickly than limited communication that repeats the same points again and again (e.g. in a newsletter).
I worry that model #2 may be closer to the truth, in part because of things like (Dilbert-creator) Scott Adams’ account of why he decided to blog less:
An issue that SI must inevitably confront is how much rationality it will assume of its target population of donors. If it simply wanted to raise as much money as possible, there are, I expect, all kinds of Dark techniques it could use (of which decreasing communication is only the tip of the iceberg). The problem is that SI also wants to raise the sanity waterline, since that is integral to its larger mission—and it’s hard (not to mention hypocritical) to do that while simultaneously using fundraising methods that depend on the waterline being below a certain level among its supporters.
How do you expect to determine the effects of this information on donations from the comments made by supporters? In my case, for instance, I’ve been fairly encouraged by the explanations like this that have been coming out of SI (and had been somewhat annoyed by the lack of them previously), but my comments tend to sound negative because I tend to focus on things that I’m still not completely satisfied with.
It’s very hard. Comments like this help a little.
As an example datapoint Eliezer’s reply to Holden caused a net decrease (not necessarily an enormous one) in both my positive affect for and abstract evaluation of the merit of the organisation based off one particularly bad argument that shocked me. It prompted some degree (again not necessarily a large degree) of updating towards the possibility that SingInst could suffer the same kind of mind-killed thinking and behavior I expect from other organisations in the class of pet-cause idealistic charities. (And that matters more for FAI oriented charities than save-the-puppies charities, with the whole think-right or destroy the world thing.)
When allowing for the possibility that I am wrong and Eliezer is right you have to expect most other supporters to be wrong a non-trivial proportion of the time too so too much talking is going to have negative side effects.
Which issue are you talking about? Is there already a comments thread about it on Eliezer’s post?
Found it. It was nested too deep in a comment tree.
The particular line was:
The position is something I think it is best I don’t mention again until (unless) I get around to writing the post “Predicting Failure Without Details” to express the position clearly with references and what limits apply to that kind of reasoning.
Isn’t it just straight-up outside view prediction?
I thought so.
I can think of a really big example favoring model #2 within the atheist community. On the oyher hand, you and Eliezer have written so much about your views on these matters that the “detailed communication” toothpaste may not be going back in the tube. And this piece made me much more inclined to support SI, particularly the disjunctive vs. Conjunctive section which did a lot for worries raised by things Eliezer has said in the past.
Is it possible that supporters might update on communicativeness, separately from updating on what you actually have to say? Generally when I see the SI talking to people, I feel the warm fuzziness before I actually read what you’re saying. It just seems like people might associate “detailed engagement with supporters and critics” with the reference class of “good organizations”.
Yup, that might be true. I hope so.
Presumably, even under model #1, the extent to which detailed communication increases donor expectations of my charity’s ability to turn money into valuable goods depends a lot on their pre-existing expectations, the level of expectations justified by the reality, and how effective the communication is at conveying the reality.