I don’t think it does assume perfect follow-up, it just assumes roughly the same follow-up from them as you. I hear you that maybe people you tip into taking the pledge are systematically different in a way that makes you doubt that as well, but I’m not actually convinced this difference is that substantial.
Similarly, I don’t think different amounts of income feels like a big problem with this sentiment to me, as long as their income isn’t systematically less (or more!) than yours. It feels like an imprecision, but if it’s true on average it’s not one I particularly resent.
(I think the rest of your points seem fine so overall I still agree with your bottom line.)
My model is that at least one of the following must be true: you’re one factor among many that caused the change, the change is not actually that big, or attrition will be much higher than standard pledge takers.
Which is fine. Accepting the framing around influencing others[1]: you will be one of many factors, but your influence will extend past one person. But I think it’s good to acknowledge the complexity.
I separately question whether the pledge is the best way to achieve this goal. Why lock in a decision for your entire life instead of, say, taking a lesson in how to talk about your donations in ways that make people feel energized instead of judged?
I don’t think it does assume perfect follow-up, it just assumes roughly the same follow-up from them as you. I hear you that maybe people you tip into taking the pledge are systematically different in a way that makes you doubt that as well, but I’m not actually convinced this difference is that substantial.
Similarly, I don’t think different amounts of income feels like a big problem with this sentiment to me, as long as their income isn’t systematically less (or more!) than yours. It feels like an imprecision, but if it’s true on average it’s not one I particularly resent.
(I think the rest of your points seem fine so overall I still agree with your bottom line.)
My model is that at least one of the following must be true: you’re one factor among many that caused the change, the change is not actually that big, or attrition will be much higher than standard pledge takers.
Which is fine. Accepting the framing around influencing others[1]: you will be one of many factors, but your influence will extend past one person. But I think it’s good to acknowledge the complexity.
I separately question whether the pledge is the best way to achieve this goal. Why lock in a decision for your entire life instead of, say, taking a lesson in how to talk about your donations in ways that make people feel energized instead of judged?