Sure, but it’s still broadly “similar” in a way in a way donations are not. Even if going vegan is 5x easier for Bill Gates, that is much more similar than the difference in difficulty of making donations.
I just don’t think it’s good proof of personal sacrifice in all cases and was arguing against this specific argument.
In general I’d argue against overly general statements about how much personal sacrifice something is. You’ll often need to understand & trust someone a bit before you can really judge this.
Examples:
My guess is that long-term veganism correlates strongly with not perceiving it as a large sacrifice.
Some people see choosing an EA-aligned career as a major personal cost, while others would have made similar choices anyway.
One billionaire might see donating $1 million as a small gesture (“just 1/2000 of my net worth”), another might see it as a big deal (“that’s $1 million of my money”).
In practice people aren’t able to figure out the the nuances a person’s net wealth and income and expenses are and how much of a sacrifice giving 10k really means to them. So they’re forced to make a judgement quickly based on limited information.
Being vegan is a less noisy signal of personal commitment than giving 10k to charity, so people will take this more seriously, whether that’s fair or not.
I’ve thought about this a bit, and I don’t think I fully understand the point you’re making.
Surely, absent more context, a 10k donation is a strong signal? It only becomes weaker if you assume the donor is very rich (e.g. “it’s <5% of their income”). But in the effective altruism community, that assumption would often be wrong.
Being vegan is a less noisy signal of personal commitment than giving 10k to charity, so people will take this more seriously, whether that’s fair or not.
I don’t know whether this is correct on average, but it likely depends a lot on context. For example, being vegan in Hollywood might be seen as trend-following or health-related, while being vegan at a university might come across as principled and self-sacrificing.
Also, I don’t think it’s true that most of the people you’re trying to signal to don’t have important information about you. If you’re telling friends you donated 10k, they likely know whether that’s a major sacrifice for you. And if a news story says “doctor donates 10% of her salary”, most readers will grasp the significance.
I’m not sure it’s true that people generally see a 10k donation as less of a personal sacrifice than going vegan. But even if they did, I doubt the effect is especially important?
Sure, but it’s still broadly “similar” in a way in a way donations are not. Even if going vegan is 5x easier for Bill Gates, that is much more similar than the difference in difficulty of making donations.
I just don’t think it’s good proof of personal sacrifice in all cases and was arguing against this specific argument.
In general I’d argue against overly general statements about how much personal sacrifice something is. You’ll often need to understand & trust someone a bit before you can really judge this.
Examples:
My guess is that long-term veganism correlates strongly with not perceiving it as a large sacrifice.
Some people see choosing an EA-aligned career as a major personal cost, while others would have made similar choices anyway.
One billionaire might see donating $1 million as a small gesture (“just 1/2000 of my net worth”), another might see it as a big deal (“that’s $1 million of my money”).
In practice people aren’t able to figure out the the nuances a person’s net wealth and income and expenses are and how much of a sacrifice giving 10k really means to them. So they’re forced to make a judgement quickly based on limited information.
Being vegan is a less noisy signal of personal commitment than giving 10k to charity, so people will take this more seriously, whether that’s fair or not.
I’ve thought about this a bit, and I don’t think I fully understand the point you’re making.
Surely, absent more context, a 10k donation is a strong signal? It only becomes weaker if you assume the donor is very rich (e.g. “it’s <5% of their income”). But in the effective altruism community, that assumption would often be wrong.
I don’t know whether this is correct on average, but it likely depends a lot on context. For example, being vegan in Hollywood might be seen as trend-following or health-related, while being vegan at a university might come across as principled and self-sacrificing.
Also, I don’t think it’s true that most of the people you’re trying to signal to don’t have important information about you. If you’re telling friends you donated 10k, they likely know whether that’s a major sacrifice for you. And if a news story says “doctor donates 10% of her salary”, most readers will grasp the significance.
I’m not sure it’s true that people generally see a 10k donation as less of a personal sacrifice than going vegan. But even if they did, I doubt the effect is especially important?