Maybe loss aversion/endowment effect is a bias that’s operating here? Donating hard-earned money is more psychologically painful than forgoing additional income?
I think you and I are psychologically different in that way. So maybe this gives you a comparative advantage in direct work, and me a comparative advantage in EtG?
Let’s see if the Less Wrong poll code works on the EAF… Which option would you find easier psychologically?
Are you considering the greatly reduced financial security? With etg, if you run into a problem you can just cut back your donations. That’s not true if your income is 4-times less.
It’s true that donations provide a cushion which should reduce insecurity, but I think the insecurity would be low anyway so reducing it has little value.
I think you’re reflexively looking for a heuristic explanation for something which is in fact fairly obvious. Most people consider stereotypical earning-to-give careers—management consultancy, IB and so on—as both stultifyingly dull and ethically nebulous on their own terms. The one redeeming fact of the situation is supposed to be that you are giving away an appreciable portion of your earnings. A life of this order requires you to meet a fairly high threshold of asceticism.
The idea that people might avoid earning-to-give because of the psychological toll of loss aversion fails to take into account that a lot of the people who are attracted to EA rate personal income as a low priority (or even something to be avoided).
Your statement sounds correct as far as it goes. I was picturing a person who already had a high-earning career being told that they were expected to give up income which had been going to savings or luxuries. Not sure which scenario Will’s experience was closer to.
Maybe loss aversion/endowment effect is a bias that’s operating here? Donating hard-earned money is more psychologically painful than forgoing additional income?
I for one would find it much psychologically easier to live on 25% of my current comp than to donate 50% of it.
I think you and I are psychologically different in that way. So maybe this gives you a comparative advantage in direct work, and me a comparative advantage in EtG?
Let’s see if the Less Wrong poll code works on the EAF… Which option would you find easier psychologically?
[pollid:6]
Are you considering the greatly reduced financial security? With etg, if you run into a problem you can just cut back your donations. That’s not true if your income is 4-times less.
It’s true that donations provide a cushion which should reduce insecurity, but I think the insecurity would be low anyway so reducing it has little value.
I think you’re reflexively looking for a heuristic explanation for something which is in fact fairly obvious. Most people consider stereotypical earning-to-give careers—management consultancy, IB and so on—as both stultifyingly dull and ethically nebulous on their own terms. The one redeeming fact of the situation is supposed to be that you are giving away an appreciable portion of your earnings. A life of this order requires you to meet a fairly high threshold of asceticism.
The idea that people might avoid earning-to-give because of the psychological toll of loss aversion fails to take into account that a lot of the people who are attracted to EA rate personal income as a low priority (or even something to be avoided).
Your statement sounds correct as far as it goes. I was picturing a person who already had a high-earning career being told that they were expected to give up income which had been going to savings or luxuries. Not sure which scenario Will’s experience was closer to.