Yeah, I suppose that’s true. It’s still +EV even if the money disappears into a blackhole if you don’t win, because if you win, you get to spend more time deciding where to donate.
I guess my hesitation around the lotteries is I’m uncomfortable with expected value calculations at the extremes (e.g. 1 in a million chance to win for a million more impact), and that I’d experience regret if I didn’t think the eventually winner was thoughtful in their giving (even if it is still +EV).
I mean, I’d still be hesitant at a 1% chance. Let’s say I give my donations every year for 40 years to a donor lottery at a 1% chance. Then it’s a 0.99^40 = 67% chance I’d never get to choose where the money goes. Personally, I’m not sure I could handle that. I’d more comfortable with 10% odds.
Seems similar to startups as an earning to give approach. It makes more sense for 10 people to attempt start-ups than to pursue high-paying careers because the expected value is larger. But it really sucks for the people that never succeed, and many probably give up earning to give and leave the movement altogether. It’s a high price to pay in terms of community and mental health for greater expected aggregate impact.
Ideally there would be some way to involve lottery losers in the win—at least acknowledging them, or having them give feedback on a draft giving proposal. That would help counteract the wearing feeling of pitching money into the void, without negating too much of the benefit of having one person do all the heavy work of deciding where to give.
Yeah, I suppose that’s true. It’s still +EV even if the money disappears into a blackhole if you don’t win, because if you win, you get to spend more time deciding where to donate.
I guess my hesitation around the lotteries is I’m uncomfortable with expected value calculations at the extremes (e.g. 1 in a million chance to win for a million more impact), and that I’d experience regret if I didn’t think the eventually winner was thoughtful in their giving (even if it is still +EV).
We’re not talking about one in a million odds, though? We’re talking about 1%
I mean, I’d still be hesitant at a 1% chance. Let’s say I give my donations every year for 40 years to a donor lottery at a 1% chance. Then it’s a 0.99^40 = 67% chance I’d never get to choose where the money goes. Personally, I’m not sure I could handle that. I’d more comfortable with 10% odds.
Seems similar to startups as an earning to give approach. It makes more sense for 10 people to attempt start-ups than to pursue high-paying careers because the expected value is larger. But it really sucks for the people that never succeed, and many probably give up earning to give and leave the movement altogether. It’s a high price to pay in terms of community and mental health for greater expected aggregate impact.
Ideally there would be some way to involve lottery losers in the win—at least acknowledging them, or having them give feedback on a draft giving proposal. That would help counteract the wearing feeling of pitching money into the void, without negating too much of the benefit of having one person do all the heavy work of deciding where to give.