I’m impressed by the top 5 entries, approximately in the order of the mean donation amount they caused.
I submitted an entry to this contest which I thought was decent when I wrote it, but now seems really mediocre upon re-reading it (see my reply to this comment for my entry).
One thing I noticed about all five of the Top 5 arguments (though not my entry) is that they all can be interpreted as guilting the reader into donating. That is, there is an unstated implication the reader could draw that the reader would be a bad person if they chose not to donate:
Argument #9: After reading this winning argument, the reader might think: “Now if I don’t donate the $10 I’d be admitting that I don’t value the suffering of children in poor countries even one-thousandth as much as my own child (or someone I know’s child). What a terrible person I’d be. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument #3: Someone might think: “Practically everyone agrees that giving to charity is good, so if I don’t donate the $10 that would make me bad. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument #5: “If I take the $10 rather than donate it, I’d be putting my own interest in receiving $10 above the interests of four children who don’t want malaria, which would make me a bad person. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument $12: “I just read that I should feel good about whether I decide to ‘take’ or ‘give’ the $10. And also that I should prioritize helping a large number of people over the value of $10 for myself. So now I’m not sure that I could feel good about ‘taking’ the money for myself. I don’t want to feel guilty over $10 so I’ll donate.”
Argument #14: “‘Every single day you have the opportunity to spare a small amount of money to provide a fellow human with the same basic access to food or drinking water – how often have you done this?’ Clearly I’d be a bad person if I decided to take $10 that is offered to me rather than give the $10 to provide a fellow human with basic access to food or drinking water. I don’t want to feel like a bad person, so I’ll donate.
I think an important thing to consider with this study (as with most psychology-style experiments) is the generalisability/external validity of the results, and in particular the extent to which the effects may only be short-lived and may primarily reflect things like demand characteristics and social desirability bias.
These results might not matter much if they just reflect the best ways to get people to give an extra dollar right after being shown some relevant text. What matters more is the bets ways to get people to give substantially more, or to give moderate amounts in an ongoing way (even when they’re not being observed and haven’t seen some relevant text right beforehand).
And I think this is worth bearing in mind when we think about the value of arguments that may induce some degree of guilt. These results suggests that those sorts of arguments may work best for influencing people to give slightly more in this low-stakes and unusual setting (though personally Argument 12 didn’t seem very guilt-inducing to me). But it still seems plausible that those sorts of arguments don’t work especially well—or even work fairly badly—for leading to larger or more ongoing donations (e.g., because people get annoyed or stressed by these arguments and thus stop engaging over time or when no one’s looking).
That said, I have no specific evidence for that, and I’m not saying I think that’s especially likely. Anecdotally, it does seem that arguments that could induce some degree of guilt have been important in many EAs’ journeys into EA, and in many EAs’ current thinking. (That’s the case for me, for example.)
Morally it is a very good thing to donate to highly-effective charities such as Against Malaria Foundation because the money will go very far to do a lot of good.
To elaborate:
Consider that in relatively-rich developed countries, many governments and people are willing to spend large amounts of money, in the range of $1,000,000-$10,000,000, to avert (prevent) a death. For example, the United States Department of Transportation put the value of a life at $9.2 million in 2014.
In comparison, according to estimates of researchers at the nonprofit GiveWell, which is dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of their analysis to help donors decide where to give, it only costs about $2,300 to save a life if that money is given to Against Malaria Foundation, one of GiveWell’s top charities.
Specifically, consider these four cost-effectiveness estimate results:
GiveWell’s 2019 median staff estimate of the “Cost per under-5 death averted” for Against Malaria Foundation is $3,710.
GiveWell’s 2019 median staff estimate of the “Cost per age 5+ death averted” for Against Malaria Foundation is $6,269.
GiveWell’s 2019 median staff estimate of the “Cost per death averted at any age” for Against Malaria Foundation is $2,331.
GiveWell’s 2019 median staff estimate of the “Cost per outcome as good as: averting the death of an individual under 5” for Against Malaria Foundation is $1,690.
These are bargain prices enabling people like you to make your money go very far to do a lot of good, regardless of how much money you give.
If these sound like unbelievably low prices to you given the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that it can cost to save a life in developed countries such as the United States, consider that the reality is that millions of people die of preventable diseases every year in very poor countries in Africa and elsewhere. As such, these very inexpensive ways of saving lives very cost-effectively do in fact exist.
Since money you give to Against Malaria Foundation will go very far to do a lot of good to save lives, you should strongly consider donating to Against Malaria Foundation or another highly-effective charity if given the opportunity. Even a donation of just $10 to Against Malaria Foundation or another highly-effective charity will do a lot of good.
Based on GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness estimates above, and assuming that averting a death saves about 30 years of life on average, your decision to donate even just $10 to the Against Malaria Foundation will prevent approximately 47 days of life from being lost in expectation.
In summary, it is a very morally good and morally praiseworthy thing to donate to highly-effective charities such as Against Malaria Foundation because the money will go very far to do a lot of good.
My entry is different than all five of the Top 5 entries in that my entry is the only one to not engage with the objection “but what about the value of $10 for myself?”
The primary reason why people don’t give presumably is because they’d rather have the money for their own uses.
All five of the Top 5 arguments engage with this idea by implying in one way or another that taking the money for your own use would make you a selfish or bad person.
My entry seems mediocre (in part) because it only highlights the benefits of effective giving to others. It does not attempt to make the reader feel guilty about turning down these bargain opportunities and taking the $10 for oneself.
I’m impressed by the top 5 entries, approximately in the order of the mean donation amount they caused.
I submitted an entry to this contest which I thought was decent when I wrote it, but now seems really mediocre upon re-reading it (see my reply to this comment for my entry).
One thing I noticed about all five of the Top 5 arguments (though not my entry) is that they all can be interpreted as guilting the reader into donating. That is, there is an unstated implication the reader could draw that the reader would be a bad person if they chose not to donate:
Argument #9: After reading this winning argument, the reader might think: “Now if I don’t donate the $10 I’d be admitting that I don’t value the suffering of children in poor countries even one-thousandth as much as my own child (or someone I know’s child). What a terrible person I’d be. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument #3: Someone might think: “Practically everyone agrees that giving to charity is good, so if I don’t donate the $10 that would make me bad. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument #5: “If I take the $10 rather than donate it, I’d be putting my own interest in receiving $10 above the interests of four children who don’t want malaria, which would make me a bad person. I don’t want to feel like a bad person so I’ll donate.”
Argument $12: “I just read that I should feel good about whether I decide to ‘take’ or ‘give’ the $10. And also that I should prioritize helping a large number of people over the value of $10 for myself. So now I’m not sure that I could feel good about ‘taking’ the money for myself. I don’t want to feel guilty over $10 so I’ll donate.”
Argument #14: “‘Every single day you have the opportunity to spare a small amount of money to provide a fellow human with the same basic access to food or drinking water – how often have you done this?’ Clearly I’d be a bad person if I decided to take $10 that is offered to me rather than give the $10 to provide a fellow human with basic access to food or drinking water. I don’t want to feel like a bad person, so I’ll donate.
I think an important thing to consider with this study (as with most psychology-style experiments) is the generalisability/external validity of the results, and in particular the extent to which the effects may only be short-lived and may primarily reflect things like demand characteristics and social desirability bias.
These results might not matter much if they just reflect the best ways to get people to give an extra dollar right after being shown some relevant text. What matters more is the bets ways to get people to give substantially more, or to give moderate amounts in an ongoing way (even when they’re not being observed and haven’t seen some relevant text right beforehand).
And I think this is worth bearing in mind when we think about the value of arguments that may induce some degree of guilt. These results suggests that those sorts of arguments may work best for influencing people to give slightly more in this low-stakes and unusual setting (though personally Argument 12 didn’t seem very guilt-inducing to me). But it still seems plausible that those sorts of arguments don’t work especially well—or even work fairly badly—for leading to larger or more ongoing donations (e.g., because people get annoyed or stressed by these arguments and thus stop engaging over time or when no one’s looking).
That said, I have no specific evidence for that, and I’m not saying I think that’s especially likely. Anecdotally, it does seem that arguments that could induce some degree of guilt have been important in many EAs’ journeys into EA, and in many EAs’ current thinking. (That’s the case for me, for example.)
My entry (475 words):
My entry is different than all five of the Top 5 entries in that my entry is the only one to not engage with the objection “but what about the value of $10 for myself?”
The primary reason why people don’t give presumably is because they’d rather have the money for their own uses.
All five of the Top 5 arguments engage with this idea by implying in one way or another that taking the money for your own use would make you a selfish or bad person.
My entry seems mediocre (in part) because it only highlights the benefits of effective giving to others. It does not attempt to make the reader feel guilty about turning down these bargain opportunities and taking the $10 for oneself.