I think this is an understandable thing to do and I could imagine doing the same. But people should know that it comes at the cost that we have to put in more time—perhaps a month of staff time—in order to eventually reach our goal. In addition, there’s the stress and uncertainty it creates for us.
This isn’t a good reason to give if you actually think your donations would be much more valuable elsewhere, but it is a reason not to always hold out until the last minute.
Yeah, I agree (and sorry if it sounded like I didn’t)! But I suspect that this is a part of the coordination problem: each individual donor thinks that for them to hold off won’t save GWWC very much time, but it could save them potentially having no counterfactual impact.
Thinking that they might have no counterfactual impact sounds like a mistake—not increasing the amount GWWC raises means that other people didn’t give to GWWC, and those are likely to be highly strategic and impact-oriented donors who would probably seek out a different valuable giving opportunity otherwise.
You can reasonably think that you have reduced counterfactual impact, if you think that your personal alternative donation target will beat that of the average displaced donor. By the same token you could reasonably give to GWWC in the hope that this would displace donations, and that those donations would be better-researched than your giving otherwise would be.
My guess is that GWWC’s marginal donors would likely give to other EA orgs or GiveWell recommended charities, so to the extent you’re getting replacement (not likely 100%), it’s just going to the marginal EA projects instead.
Good point, that sounds plausible—I attempted to capture it in my poll in reply to Ben’s but it has so far not reached many people who actually gave to GWWC.
I think this is an understandable thing to do and I could imagine doing the same. But people should know that it comes at the cost that we have to put in more time—perhaps a month of staff time—in order to eventually reach our goal. In addition, there’s the stress and uncertainty it creates for us.
This isn’t a good reason to give if you actually think your donations would be much more valuable elsewhere, but it is a reason not to always hold out until the last minute.
Yeah, I agree (and sorry if it sounded like I didn’t)! But I suspect that this is a part of the coordination problem: each individual donor thinks that for them to hold off won’t save GWWC very much time, but it could save them potentially having no counterfactual impact.
Thinking that they might have no counterfactual impact sounds like a mistake—not increasing the amount GWWC raises means that other people didn’t give to GWWC, and those are likely to be highly strategic and impact-oriented donors who would probably seek out a different valuable giving opportunity otherwise.
You can reasonably think that you have reduced counterfactual impact, if you think that your personal alternative donation target will beat that of the average displaced donor. By the same token you could reasonably give to GWWC in the hope that this would displace donations, and that those donations would be better-researched than your giving otherwise would be.
My guess is that GWWC’s marginal donors would likely give to other EA orgs or GiveWell recommended charities, so to the extent you’re getting replacement (not likely 100%), it’s just going to the marginal EA projects instead.
Good point, that sounds plausible—I attempted to capture it in my poll in reply to Ben’s but it has so far not reached many people who actually gave to GWWC.