Need for quant evaluations outside the top/most transparent
I don’t think there is a strong base of rigorous evaluations of ‘which non-top (or multi-intervention) charities are closer to being impactful’ and ’what is a good range of estimated impacts for these. [1] I think this would be a good thing to have for the most part. I was hoping SoGive or ImpactMatters could fill this niche, but it hasn’t happened.
E.g., I think there are people that might never give to AMF but might be convinced to give to Oxfam or MSF instead of Save the Children or St. Judes Hospital. What would be the value of this… is it worth our effort? We don’t know.
Engage but push back a bit, and get them thinking about being quantitative
As you say, elephants/trans rights/US diabetics are likely to be orders of magnitude less impactful per $. Is it still worth your time to engage? Maybe, if you can do so in a way that...
Gets these people thinking about measuring impact,
and expanded moral circles,
makes them explicitly note they are playing favorites, and likely to be neglecting something much more effective.
… You can say ‘here is the argument for donating to a GiveWell charity’ (or an ACE charity, etc.), but I understand you have particular reasons to want to support elephants. (And maybe say a little more about this, engage them in a discussion.)
This may not get them to donate to AMF, or even UNICEF now, but it may shift their thinking going forward.
I think you’re right about engaging them. I could ask them a modified version of the trolley problem like, “would you rather save 10 lives that aren’t trans / diabetic / an elephant versus 1 life that is trans / diabetic / an elephant”? Then share a link to an article about how some charities are 10 or 100 times as effective as others, and another article about how cheap it is to save human or animal lives.
I’ve been concerned that my response would come across abrasive if I try to bring up being effective, but I think responding to them in the form of a question would help prevent that (like the trolley problem question about). (Honestly, I am frustrated with people choosing ineffective causes, but I want to tamper that down and not convey that.)
I don’t think there is a strong base of rigorous evaluations...
Thanks. It helps to know that that info simply doesn’t exist.
Oxfam or MSF instead of Save the Children or St. Judes Hospital. What would be the value of this… is it worth our effort? We don’t know.
Makes sense.
I’d be curious to hear your answer to this question. I asked it as a separate question in case future visitors to the forum have this question—they can find it in the search results.
I have no actual suggestions but some meta-ones.
Need for quant evaluations outside the top/most transparent
I don’t think there is a strong base of rigorous evaluations of ‘which non-top (or multi-intervention) charities are closer to being impactful’ and ’what is a good range of estimated impacts for these. [1] I think this would be a good thing to have for the most part. I was hoping SoGive or ImpactMatters could fill this niche, but it hasn’t happened.
E.g., I think there are people that might never give to AMF but might be convinced to give to Oxfam or MSF instead of Save the Children or St. Judes Hospital. What would be the value of this… is it worth our effort? We don’t know.
Engage but push back a bit, and get them thinking about being quantitative
As you say, elephants/trans rights/US diabetics are likely to be orders of magnitude less impactful per $. Is it still worth your time to engage? Maybe, if you can do so in a way that...
Gets these people thinking about measuring impact,
and expanded moral circles,
makes them explicitly note they are playing favorites, and likely to be neglecting something much more effective.
… You can say ‘here is the argument for donating to a GiveWell charity’ (or an ACE charity, etc.), but I understand you have particular reasons to want to support elephants. (And maybe say a little more about this, engage them in a discussion.)
This may not get them to donate to AMF, or even UNICEF now, but it may shift their thinking going forward.
Or ‘which do better at harder-to-measure outcomes’ … with credible quantified measures and uncertainty.
Thanks. This is helpful.
I think you’re right about engaging them. I could ask them a modified version of the trolley problem like, “would you rather save 10 lives that aren’t trans / diabetic / an elephant versus 1 life that is trans / diabetic / an elephant”? Then share a link to an article about how some charities are 10 or 100 times as effective as others, and another article about how cheap it is to save human or animal lives.
I’ve been concerned that my response would come across abrasive if I try to bring up being effective, but I think responding to them in the form of a question would help prevent that (like the trolley problem question about). (Honestly, I am frustrated with people choosing ineffective causes, but I want to tamper that down and not convey that.)
Thanks. It helps to know that that info simply doesn’t exist.
Makes sense.
I’d be curious to hear your answer to this question. I asked it as a separate question in case future visitors to the forum have this question—they can find it in the search results.