The idea of scope insensitivity is interesting. I wonder if income has any impact on scope insensitivity. For example, in the drowning birds scenario, do people give the amount they they feel they can spare at the moment? Presumably this amount does not shift much month to month and therefore wouldn’t change with the increase in need. From a fundraising perspective, this concept is helpful. A campaign to put one person experiencing homelessness in an apartment would do just as well as a campaign to get a group of people in apartments.
The concept of giving enough to get the warm glow is interesting.
Many people tithe. We give a set percent (usually 10%) of our income. The tithe comes first, off the top. It’s not for a warm glow. Maybe duty??? Sometimes it actually hurts and there is definitely not a warm glow at those times. EG I have to give the 10% but that means my kids can’t do some activity they want, or get those cool shoes that everybody else has.
While I have experienced the warm glow, I’ve also experienced the pain. Also, the number of birds or human lives saved won’t influence me. Not because I’m insensitive, but because 10% controls the amount I give. I am not saying that I’m more sensitive than others. I just don’t respond to requests like that. I do an annual giving plan and usually stick pretty close to it. It’s part of the monthly budget with a different charity (or two or three) in the budget each month.
The concept of tithe comes from the Torah, but it some people apply it outside of the religious setting.
FYI there are some missing spaces in front of italicized words in this article, and possibly others. Feel free to delete this comment when it’s resolved.
Numbers and perspectives around statistics could make a person doubt if any help is going to make a change. A cold heart would see the beneficial around a factible cause and not for a lost one.
Altruism sometimes can be compered with a sport-team, if your cause is known and crucial, it could get far away from baseline to make a real change by the interest and funding from people around the world, nevertheless, other causes could only be part of an idiosyncrasy from least fortunate people or situations.
This raises the questions, how can we make altruism from any cause a real enterprise? Are the numbers more important than the good heart?
Besides any political party, helping by long lasting actions such as teaching, promoting health, feeding, democracy, etc. those are what we should first finance with troops of multidisciplinary professionals.
The idea of scope insensitivity is interesting. I wonder if income has any impact on scope insensitivity. For example, in the drowning birds scenario, do people give the amount they they feel they can spare at the moment? Presumably this amount does not shift much month to month and therefore wouldn’t change with the increase in need. From a fundraising perspective, this concept is helpful. A campaign to put one person experiencing homelessness in an apartment would do just as well as a campaign to get a group of people in apartments.
The concept of giving enough to get the warm glow is interesting.
Many people tithe. We give a set percent (usually 10%) of our income. The tithe comes first, off the top. It’s not for a warm glow. Maybe duty??? Sometimes it actually hurts and there is definitely not a warm glow at those times. EG I have to give the 10% but that means my kids can’t do some activity they want, or get those cool shoes that everybody else has.
While I have experienced the warm glow, I’ve also experienced the pain. Also, the number of birds or human lives saved won’t influence me. Not because I’m insensitive, but because 10% controls the amount I give. I am not saying that I’m more sensitive than others. I just don’t respond to requests like that. I do an annual giving plan and usually stick pretty close to it. It’s part of the monthly budget with a different charity (or two or three) in the budget each month.
The concept of tithe comes from the Torah, but it some people apply it outside of the religious setting.
FYI there are some missing spaces in front of italicized words in this article, and possibly others. Feel free to delete this comment when it’s resolved.
Numbers and perspectives around statistics could make a person doubt if any help is going to make a change. A cold heart would see the beneficial around a factible cause and not for a lost one.
Altruism sometimes can be compered with a sport-team, if your cause is known and crucial, it could get far away from baseline to make a real change by the interest and funding from people around the world, nevertheless, other causes could only be part of an idiosyncrasy from least fortunate people or situations.
This raises the questions, how can we make altruism from any cause a real enterprise? Are the numbers more important than the good heart?
Besides any political party, helping by long lasting actions such as teaching, promoting health, feeding, democracy, etc. those are what we should first finance with troops of multidisciplinary professionals.