The linked sources are most relevant to value drift among âindividual[s] investing their own money with the intention of donating it later onâ
That whatâs most relevant here is instead value drift among âindividual[s] legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fundâ
And that it would be valuable to do historical research relevant to the latter kind of value drift
(And I think those points are not merely true but important.)
But I also think that:
The linked sources seem somewhat relevant to the latter type of value drift, and worth using as a starting point, if we have little else to go on.
Consider that we always have to generalise from one context to another, and any historical research we do that seems more relevant to the âlegally bindingâ or âdonor-advisedâ aspects of the matter at hand might also be less relevant to the âEAâ and âmodern societyâ aspects.
The (I think?) purely speculative arguments as to why the latter type of value drift would occur at a lower rate do seem worth bringing up, and worth using to update oneâs estimates. However, itâs not clear to me that those arguments are more robust than trying to generalise from the semi-relevant data we have would be.
Under such conditions, my conservative guess at the relevant value drift rate would be close to the 10% level, not 5 times lower.
If I was to decide that the linked sourcesâ data was totally irrelevant, then itâd seem this post doesnât really provide any relevant data, only speculative argument. (Though there is data elsewhere thatâs arguably relevant, e.g. regarding waqfs.) Under those conditions, I think the range of value drift rates Iâd see as plausible would stretch from close to 0% to close to 100%, and thus my conservative guess might have to be quite high.
That all makes sense. I do think we need to make the clear distinction between âindividualâ value drift and âlegally-bindedâ value drift, but youâre probably right that the ~10% may be the best starting point we have for the latter.
It might be that the only way to get a decent estimate of legally-binded value drift in an EA setting is to actually set up a fund and see what happens. I suspect it would make sense to start cautious with putting money into the fund until a low value-drift has been demonstrated (which would admittedly take some timeâperhaps a few generations). Overall I suspect it would be worth setting up such a fund for its informational value.
I definitely agree that:
The distinction you raise is important
The linked sources are most relevant to value drift among âindividual[s] investing their own money with the intention of donating it later onâ
That whatâs most relevant here is instead value drift among âindividual[s] legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fundâ
And that it would be valuable to do historical research relevant to the latter kind of value drift
(And I think those points are not merely true but important.)
But I also think that:
The linked sources seem somewhat relevant to the latter type of value drift, and worth using as a starting point, if we have little else to go on.
Consider that we always have to generalise from one context to another, and any historical research we do that seems more relevant to the âlegally bindingâ or âdonor-advisedâ aspects of the matter at hand might also be less relevant to the âEAâ and âmodern societyâ aspects.
The (I think?) purely speculative arguments as to why the latter type of value drift would occur at a lower rate do seem worth bringing up, and worth using to update oneâs estimates. However, itâs not clear to me that those arguments are more robust than trying to generalise from the semi-relevant data we have would be.
Under such conditions, my conservative guess at the relevant value drift rate would be close to the 10% level, not 5 times lower.
If I was to decide that the linked sourcesâ data was totally irrelevant, then itâd seem this post doesnât really provide any relevant data, only speculative argument. (Though there is data elsewhere thatâs arguably relevant, e.g. regarding waqfs.) Under those conditions, I think the range of value drift rates Iâd see as plausible would stretch from close to 0% to close to 100%, and thus my conservative guess might have to be quite high.
That all makes sense. I do think we need to make the clear distinction between âindividualâ value drift and âlegally-bindedâ value drift, but youâre probably right that the ~10% may be the best starting point we have for the latter.
It might be that the only way to get a decent estimate of legally-binded value drift in an EA setting is to actually set up a fund and see what happens. I suspect it would make sense to start cautious with putting money into the fund until a low value-drift has been demonstrated (which would admittedly take some timeâperhaps a few generations). Overall I suspect it would be worth setting up such a fund for its informational value.
Thanks both! I largely agree and have incorporated an updated estimate into the new model (see above).