I am sceptical to the outreach benefit of finding effective ‘at home’ charities. However I do not think I am a good person to judge as to me the ‘charity begins at home’ idea seems highly irrational, tantamount to racism.
This makes me wonder why it is so common. As little though experiment I have considered why people might believe this and how telling them there is a more effective charity may or may not help.
- Defensiveness. One of the most difficult things to do is to persuade people to stop giving to a cause that they currently give to. No-one wants to feel that they have been doing the wrong thing for years, or to be told that their actions are lacking morality that they believed their actions had. Criticising someone’s current giving pushes people into a corner and makes the defensive. I wonder to what extent the ‘well charity begins at home’ response or the ‘people should give to causes close to their heart’ line is used by people in an attempt to justify their current charitable giving.
I suspect for these people telling them a different ‘at home’ charity is highly effective may occasionally have a some positive effect, but could just increase defensiveness.
- Social norm to give at home.
For these people it is perhaps more important to persuade them that it is a social norm to give effectively.
- Self-interest. Make the society they live in nicer.
Perhaps you could persuade these people to give to a more effective ‘at home’ charity. However unless you persuade them to act instead in the interest of others, this change to an effective charity will not be a first step to being more EA, although it may be a foot in the door.
- They have a particular cause they feel strongly about
In this case you may want to recommend a charity that deals with that cause more effectively, as a foot in the door, but it is unlikely that a different at home charity would interest them.
CONCLUSION:
I think research into at home charities would have a very limited effect at making conversation easier or helping spread EA ideas
(NOTE:
- I have no evidence to base any of this on, just speculation
- My conclusion maths my intuition which I admit is bias as I do not understand ‘giving at home well’. This may be a reason to doubt me.
- It may be worth clarifying that I doubt making someone change from one ‘at home’ charity to the most effective ‘at home’ charity (that is relatively normal, so not like x-risk etc) another would be an effective use of EA time as I doubt this charity would be anywhere near as effective as any of the charities that EAs support. Others may disagree.)
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
I am sceptical to the outreach benefit of finding effective ‘at home’ charities. However I do not think I am a good person to judge as to me the ‘charity begins at home’ idea seems highly irrational, tantamount to racism. This makes me wonder why it is so common. As little though experiment I have considered why people might believe this and how telling them there is a more effective charity may or may not help.
- Defensiveness. One of the most difficult things to do is to persuade people to stop giving to a cause that they currently give to. No-one wants to feel that they have been doing the wrong thing for years, or to be told that their actions are lacking morality that they believed their actions had. Criticising someone’s current giving pushes people into a corner and makes the defensive. I wonder to what extent the ‘well charity begins at home’ response or the ‘people should give to causes close to their heart’ line is used by people in an attempt to justify their current charitable giving. I suspect for these people telling them a different ‘at home’ charity is highly effective may occasionally have a some positive effect, but could just increase defensiveness.
- Social norm to give at home. For these people it is perhaps more important to persuade them that it is a social norm to give effectively.
- Self-interest. Make the society they live in nicer. Perhaps you could persuade these people to give to a more effective ‘at home’ charity. However unless you persuade them to act instead in the interest of others, this change to an effective charity will not be a first step to being more EA, although it may be a foot in the door.
- They have a particular cause they feel strongly about In this case you may want to recommend a charity that deals with that cause more effectively, as a foot in the door, but it is unlikely that a different at home charity would interest them.
CONCLUSION: I think research into at home charities would have a very limited effect at making conversation easier or helping spread EA ideas
(NOTE: - I have no evidence to base any of this on, just speculation - My conclusion maths my intuition which I admit is bias as I do not understand ‘giving at home well’. This may be a reason to doubt me. - It may be worth clarifying that I doubt making someone change from one ‘at home’ charity to the most effective ‘at home’ charity (that is relatively normal, so not like x-risk etc) another would be an effective use of EA time as I doubt this charity would be anywhere near as effective as any of the charities that EAs support. Others may disagree.)