I would agree with your reasoning if CFAR claimed that they can reliably turn people into altruists free of cognitive biases within the span of their four-day workshop. If they claimed that and were correct in that, then it shouldn’t matter whether they (a) require up-front payment and offer a refund or (b) have people decide what to pay after the workshop, since a bias-free altruist would make end up paying the same in either case. There would only be a difference if CFAR didn’t achieve what, in this counterfactual scenario, it claimed to achieve, so they should be willing to choose option (b) which would be better for their participants if they don’t achieve these claims. But of course CFAR doesn’t actually claim that they can make you bias-free in four days, or even that they can make themselves bias-free with years of training. Much of CFAR’s curriculum is aimed at taking the brain we actually have and tweaking the way we use it in order to achieve better (not perfect, but better) results—for example, using tricks that seem to engage our brain’s mechanisms for habit formation, in order to bypass using willpower to stick with a habit, rather than somehow acquiring all the willpower that would be useful to have (since there’s no known way to just do that). Or consider precommitment devices like Beeminder—a perfectly bias-free agent wouldn’t have any use for these, but many CFAR alumni (and, I believe, CFAR instructors) have found them useful. CFAR doesn’t pretend to be able to turn people into bias-free rationalists who don’t need such devices, so I see nothing inconsistent about them both believing that they can deliver useful training that makes people both on average more effective and more altruistic (though I would expect the latter to only be true in the long run, through contact with the CFAR community, and only for a subset of people, rather than for the vast majority of attendees right after the 4-day workshop), and also believing that if they didn’t charge up-front and asked people to pay afterwards whatever they thought it was worth, they wouldn’t make enough money to stay afloat.
I would agree with your reasoning if CFAR claimed that they can reliably turn people into altruists free of cognitive biases within the span of their four-day workshop. If they claimed that and were correct in that, then it shouldn’t matter whether they (a) require up-front payment and offer a refund or (b) have people decide what to pay after the workshop, since a bias-free altruist would make end up paying the same in either case.
It’s not so much what CFAR is claiming as what their goals are and which outcomes they prefer.
The goal is to create people who are effective, rational do-gooders. I see four main possibilities here:
First, that they succeed in doing so.
Second, that they fail and go out of business.
Third, that they become a sort of self-help cult like the Landmark Forum, i.e. they charge people money without delivering much benefit.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
Obviously (1) is the top choice. But if (1) does not occur, which would they prefer -- (2), or some combination of (3) and (4)? By charging money up front, they are on the path to (3) or (4) as a second choice. Which goes against their stated goal.
So let’s assume that they do not claim to be able to turn people into effective rational do-gooders. The fact remains that they hope to do so. And one needs to ask, what do they hope for as a second choice?
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational. This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders. Their goal is not to create effective, rational do-gooders out of blank slates but make valuable marginal increases in this combination of traits, often by making people who already rank highly in these areas even better.
They also use the same workshops to make people in general more effective and rational, which they can charge money for to fund the workshops, and gives them more data to test their training methods on. That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational.
I wasn’t aware that this was the strategy; perhaps I read the original post too quickly.
This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders.
Well are they attempting to turn non-do-gooders into do-gooders?
That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
Perhaps, but that strikes me as a dangerous first step towards a kind of mission creep. Towards a scenario (3) or (4).
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
I would agree with your reasoning if CFAR claimed that they can reliably turn people into altruists free of cognitive biases within the span of their four-day workshop. If they claimed that and were correct in that, then it shouldn’t matter whether they (a) require up-front payment and offer a refund or (b) have people decide what to pay after the workshop, since a bias-free altruist would make end up paying the same in either case. There would only be a difference if CFAR didn’t achieve what, in this counterfactual scenario, it claimed to achieve, so they should be willing to choose option (b) which would be better for their participants if they don’t achieve these claims. But of course CFAR doesn’t actually claim that they can make you bias-free in four days, or even that they can make themselves bias-free with years of training. Much of CFAR’s curriculum is aimed at taking the brain we actually have and tweaking the way we use it in order to achieve better (not perfect, but better) results—for example, using tricks that seem to engage our brain’s mechanisms for habit formation, in order to bypass using willpower to stick with a habit, rather than somehow acquiring all the willpower that would be useful to have (since there’s no known way to just do that). Or consider precommitment devices like Beeminder—a perfectly bias-free agent wouldn’t have any use for these, but many CFAR alumni (and, I believe, CFAR instructors) have found them useful. CFAR doesn’t pretend to be able to turn people into bias-free rationalists who don’t need such devices, so I see nothing inconsistent about them both believing that they can deliver useful training that makes people both on average more effective and more altruistic (though I would expect the latter to only be true in the long run, through contact with the CFAR community, and only for a subset of people, rather than for the vast majority of attendees right after the 4-day workshop), and also believing that if they didn’t charge up-front and asked people to pay afterwards whatever they thought it was worth, they wouldn’t make enough money to stay afloat.
It’s not so much what CFAR is claiming as what their goals are and which outcomes they prefer.
The goal is to create people who are effective, rational do-gooders. I see four main possibilities here:
First, that they succeed in doing so.
Second, that they fail and go out of business.
Third, that they become a sort of self-help cult like the Landmark Forum, i.e. they charge people money without delivering much benefit.
Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.
Obviously (1) is the top choice. But if (1) does not occur, which would they prefer -- (2), or some combination of (3) and (4)? By charging money up front, they are on the path to (3) or (4) as a second choice. Which goes against their stated goal.
So let’s assume that they do not claim to be able to turn people into effective rational do-gooders. The fact remains that they hope to do so. And one needs to ask, what do they hope for as a second choice?
CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational. This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders. Their goal is not to create effective, rational do-gooders out of blank slates but make valuable marginal increases in this combination of traits, often by making people who already rank highly in these areas even better.
They also use the same workshops to make people in general more effective and rational, which they can charge money for to fund the workshops, and gives them more data to test their training methods on. That they don’t turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.
CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.
I wasn’t aware that this was the strategy; perhaps I read the original post too quickly.
Well are they attempting to turn non-do-gooders into do-gooders?
Perhaps, but that strikes me as a dangerous first step towards a kind of mission creep. Towards a scenario (3) or (4).
Same problem.