I still think that the original post isn’t quite clear enough about its limited scope, but having read the other comments, I’d like to give a meta-compliment to the author for being willing to lay out a piece that makes just a single point.
Intellectual progress often relies on having a library of concepts available for easy reference, and for combining with other concepts. There are lots of reasons that RPTP applies to no one or almost no one in this strict form, but there are benefits to writing like this:
First, in considering all the reasons that strictRPTP doesn’t apply to Groups X and Y, we begin to understand the true preferences and models behind the donation practices of those groups. Narrow arguments with extreme outcomes can help us frame different ways that those outcomes don’t quite map onto the real world, which in turn helps us think about what the real world is really like. (“Why not save until the end of time? Oh, because maybe I’ll change in the process, or die unexpectedly, or encounter an apocalypse that prevents donation—so how can I incorporate all those risks into my current strategy?”)
Second, they give us simple math from which to build complex models. If I were to try and create an equation showing how any donor could plug in their preferences and output a “value of support” for any cause, I’d remember to include time preferences. (This is the kind of thing I often forget to do, because I have a very low discount rate.)
I like long, integrated collections of ideas, but they’re hard to follow and hard to criticize productively. (“I disagree with points 1, 3, and 6, and your claimed interaction between points 2 and 5, and have you considered that point 9 breaks down at extreme values of Q?”) Give me a series of short, single-idea posts, and I’ll have a much easier time working them into a model.
I still think that the original post isn’t quite clear enough about its limited scope, but having read the other comments, I’d like to give a meta-compliment to the author for being willing to lay out a piece that makes just a single point.
Intellectual progress often relies on having a library of concepts available for easy reference, and for combining with other concepts. There are lots of reasons that RPTP applies to no one or almost no one in this strict form, but there are benefits to writing like this:
First, in considering all the reasons that strict RPTP doesn’t apply to Groups X and Y, we begin to understand the true preferences and models behind the donation practices of those groups. Narrow arguments with extreme outcomes can help us frame different ways that those outcomes don’t quite map onto the real world, which in turn helps us think about what the real world is really like. (“Why not save until the end of time? Oh, because maybe I’ll change in the process, or die unexpectedly, or encounter an apocalypse that prevents donation—so how can I incorporate all those risks into my current strategy?”)
Second, they give us simple math from which to build complex models. If I were to try and create an equation showing how any donor could plug in their preferences and output a “value of support” for any cause, I’d remember to include time preferences. (This is the kind of thing I often forget to do, because I have a very low discount rate.)
I like long, integrated collections of ideas, but they’re hard to follow and hard to criticize productively. (“I disagree with points 1, 3, and 6, and your claimed interaction between points 2 and 5, and have you considered that point 9 breaks down at extreme values of Q?”) Give me a series of short, single-idea posts, and I’ll have a much easier time working them into a model.
Thanks!
And if you have any particular ways you think this post still overstates its case, please don’t hesitate to point them out.