What part of “Steven Landsburg was simply correct about what a rational agent should do” is so hard for people to come to terms with? Not every mistake can be excused as an amazing clever strategy in disguise.
I think he’s right in a hypothetical world of rational donors who don’t interact. I think his strategy fails to win in this world, where most actors aren’t rational and where donors do interact in great clumps.
Maybe I’m being dumb but I don’t see how that’s likely to happen. What mechanism is going to cause more net altruism to be created by diversifying in order to influence irrational donors?
Leading by example, for one. It’s somewhat similar to voting with dollars.
There is also the Pareto-like structure where you do a funding drive by starting with large donors and using them to recruit the next level down—“I gave $50k, you can give $10k.” This works so well in practice that it’s pretty much a standard way to run a proper funding drive. Note that it works by turning donors into co-conspirators.
Right, but is that more effective when you spread your donations than when you concentrate them?
Well, I suppose donating to less effective causes might incentivize donors interested in those causes to start donating “at all”, and might be worthwhile if they couldn’t be convinced to adopt the better charity instead. Is that what you mean?
I think he’s right in a hypothetical world of rational donors who don’t interact. I think his strategy fails to win in this world, where most actors aren’t rational and where donors do interact in great clumps.
Maybe I’m being dumb but I don’t see how that’s likely to happen. What mechanism is going to cause more net altruism to be created by diversifying in order to influence irrational donors?
Leading by example, for one. It’s somewhat similar to voting with dollars.
There is also the Pareto-like structure where you do a funding drive by starting with large donors and using them to recruit the next level down—“I gave $50k, you can give $10k.” This works so well in practice that it’s pretty much a standard way to run a proper funding drive. Note that it works by turning donors into co-conspirators.
Right, but is that more effective when you spread your donations than when you concentrate them?
Well, I suppose donating to less effective causes might incentivize donors interested in those causes to start donating “at all”, and might be worthwhile if they couldn’t be convinced to adopt the better charity instead. Is that what you mean?