1. Iāve collected a bunch of relevant sources here, which you or other readers may find useful.
2.
For instance, these three sources (1,2,3) collectively suggest a yearly value drift rate of ~10% for individuals within the effective altruism community.
However, the short-term value drift rate also seems much easier to influence positively [...]
Given the availability of these strategies, I currently see 2% as a conservative estimate for the short-term[5] value drift rate for a strongly committed and strategic investor-philanthropist.
I think it would be reasonable for oneās best guess of the value drift rate for a āstrongly committed and strategic investor-philanthropistā to be notably below the ~10% suggested by those three sources. This is because (a) those three sources donāt provide very robust evidence, and (b), as you note, a strategic investor-philanthropist could make a conscious effort to reduce their value drift rate.
But (b) also seems a quite speculative and non-robust argument, at this stage. So it doesnāt seem to me that 2% should be called a āconservativeā estimate. It also seems like 0.5%, the ābest guessā used in the spreadsheet, is a very low estimate, given the evidence we have. Is there other evidence you have in mind that leads you to see 2% as conservative, and 0.5% as a best guess?
(To be clear, I currently, tentatively lean towards the idea that EAs should likely move more in the direction of patient philanthropy. And I donāt think these points would overturn that. But they might temper it somewhat.)
3.
this estimate depends a lot on the the hypothetical investor-philanthropist in question, so I invite the reader to make their own estimates based on the case they are considering
[Footnote:] Granted, there are obvious difficulties in estimating oneās own expected value drift rate.
One difficulty that seems to me especially worth noting is the end-of-history illusion: āa psychological illusion in which individuals of all ages believe that they have experienced significant personal growth and changes in tastes up to the present moment, but will not substantially grow or mature in the futureā.
I would expect this to cause a systematic bias towards underestimating oneās own likelihood of value drift. (But itās hard to say how strong that bias would be, or whether itās outweighed by other factors.)
I wonder if we need to make a very clear distinction between value drift in the case of an individual investing their own money with the intention of donating it later on, and value drift in the case of an individual legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fund.
In the latter case, which seems to be the most relevant in this context, I think the linked sources and the ~10% individual value drift figure are pretty irrelevant. A priority should probably be estimating a specific value drift estimate in the case of legally-binded giving, which will require some historical research into donor-advised funds or similar legal vehicles.
So MichaelA when you say ā0.5% is very low given the evidence we haveā, Iām not convinced we actually have any relevant evidence at all, or at least I havenāt seen it be presented.
The linked sources are most relevant to value drift among āindividual[s] investing their own money with the intention of donating it later onā
That whatās most relevant here is instead value drift among āindividual[s] legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fundā
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 ālegally bindingā or ādonor-advisedā aspects of the matter at hand might also be less relevant to the āEAā and āmodern societyā 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 oneās estimates. However, itās 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 sourcesā data was totally irrelevant, then itād seem this post doesnāt really provide any relevant data, only speculative argument. (Though there is data elsewhere thatās arguably relevant, e.g. regarding waqfs.) Under those conditions, I think the range of value drift rates Iād 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 āindividualā value drift and ālegally-bindedā value drift, but youāre 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 timeāperhaps a few generations). Overall I suspect it would be worth setting up such a fund for its informational value.
Some thoughts on value drift:
1. Iāve collected a bunch of relevant sources here, which you or other readers may find useful.
2.
I think it would be reasonable for oneās best guess of the value drift rate for a āstrongly committed and strategic investor-philanthropistā to be notably below the ~10% suggested by those three sources. This is because (a) those three sources donāt provide very robust evidence, and (b), as you note, a strategic investor-philanthropist could make a conscious effort to reduce their value drift rate.
But (b) also seems a quite speculative and non-robust argument, at this stage. So it doesnāt seem to me that 2% should be called a āconservativeā estimate. It also seems like 0.5%, the ābest guessā used in the spreadsheet, is a very low estimate, given the evidence we have. Is there other evidence you have in mind that leads you to see 2% as conservative, and 0.5% as a best guess?
(To be clear, I currently, tentatively lean towards the idea that EAs should likely move more in the direction of patient philanthropy. And I donāt think these points would overturn that. But they might temper it somewhat.)
3.
One difficulty that seems to me especially worth noting is the end-of-history illusion: āa psychological illusion in which individuals of all ages believe that they have experienced significant personal growth and changes in tastes up to the present moment, but will not substantially grow or mature in the futureā.
I would expect this to cause a systematic bias towards underestimating oneās own likelihood of value drift. (But itās hard to say how strong that bias would be, or whether itās outweighed by other factors.)
I wonder if we need to make a very clear distinction between value drift in the case of an individual investing their own money with the intention of donating it later on, and value drift in the case of an individual legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fund.
In the latter case, which seems to be the most relevant in this context, I think the linked sources and the ~10% individual value drift figure are pretty irrelevant. A priority should probably be estimating a specific value drift estimate in the case of legally-binded giving, which will require some historical research into donor-advised funds or similar legal vehicles.
So MichaelA when you say ā0.5% is very low given the evidence we haveā, Iām not convinced we actually have any relevant evidence at all, or at least I havenāt seen it be presented.
I definitely agree that:
The distinction you raise is important
The linked sources are most relevant to value drift among āindividual[s] investing their own money with the intention of donating it later onā
That whatās most relevant here is instead value drift among āindividual[s] legally-binding themselves to donate, for example by giving to a donor-advised fundā
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 ālegally bindingā or ādonor-advisedā aspects of the matter at hand might also be less relevant to the āEAā and āmodern societyā 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 oneās estimates. However, itās 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 sourcesā data was totally irrelevant, then itād seem this post doesnāt really provide any relevant data, only speculative argument. (Though there is data elsewhere thatās arguably relevant, e.g. regarding waqfs.) Under those conditions, I think the range of value drift rates Iād 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 āindividualā value drift and ālegally-bindedā value drift, but youāre 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 timeāperhaps 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).