Counterfactual reasoning here is thinking on the margin, or about opportunity cost (modulo some money/utility mixup in these terms). For a hypothetical donation/intervention, how much better would the outcome be if it was made compared to if it was not made, or compared to some alternative donation/intervention?
This is in contrast to a fallacious mode of reasoning where you choose a cause based on how much good it’s currently doing, or how well it’s doing it, on any metric. A cause that’s doing well sometimes no longer has the capacity to make much use of additional funding or talent, while a neglected cause could turn the same funding or talent into more effect.
Counterfactual reasoning here is thinking on the margin, or about opportunity cost (modulo some money/utility mixup in these terms). For a hypothetical donation/intervention, how much better would the outcome be if it was made compared to if it was not made, or compared to some alternative donation/intervention?
This is in contrast to a fallacious mode of reasoning where you choose a cause based on how much good it’s currently doing, or how well it’s doing it, on any metric. A cause that’s doing well sometimes no longer has the capacity to make much use of additional funding or talent, while a neglected cause could turn the same funding or talent into more effect.
Thanks for this!