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.
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.