My gut reaction to this is pretty negative. I’ve considered donating to be a sort of obvious thing that you have to do if you don’t want to be personally responsible for unnecessary death and suffering, and something that’s expected rather than something that you can brag about. So seeing things promoted in this way strikes me as, well, shallow marketing. But don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with marketing moral obligations if that’s what it takes to get more people to give their money. I read somewhere else that you shouldn’t fall prey to the fallacy of assuming that other people will think the same way that you do, so I shouldn’t assume that other people will also have a negative reaction to this. If this works to convince more people to give their money then great, I’m all for it. My gut reaction is negative but my think-about-it reaction is not. I hope I’m not derailing the conversation or the spirit of your project, I’m just giving you my data point as an example of how some people might have negative psychological reactions.
But how do you think the average person might view this? I thought it was pretty straightforward that people are disturbed and made uncomfortable by other people’s signalling of moral superiority. That’s why people get bothered by vegans and altruists, even if they’re not bragging at all, just because they are made uncomfortable and feel inferior in the presence of do-gooders.
Moreover, I can imagine plenty of EA critics using this as a great example of philanthropy becoming a cultural fetish that gives people psychological rationalization to dodge personal responsibility for participation in capitalism and avoiding systemic change. It plays right into the hands of Zizek et al. But I haven’t heard much from that crowd lately, so I don’t know if they’re still relevant.
First, let me commend you for avoiding the typical mind fallacy. I think it’s very cool that you are able to draw that difference between that intuitive “ugh” gut reaction and the think-about-it reaction.
Indeed, it’s a valuable data point. I think it gets to the heart of the matter. The Superdonor concept is not personally appealing to me, and to many other EAs. However, it is appealing to many people who wish to donate for reasons other than “it’s the obvious thing to do.”
Regarding your point about marketing moral obligations, here are some other reasons people give and ways that the Superdonor concept can appeal to them, which I outlined in the earlier Superdonor post.
Superdonor conveys the feeling of power – you can be super in your donations! Superdonor conveys an especially strong degree of generosity. Superdonor conveys a feeling of superiority, as in better than other donors. In other words, even if you donate less, if you donate more effectively, you can still be better than other donors by donating more effectively. This appeals to the “Keeping Up With the Joneses” effect, a powerful force in guiding our spending. Just as importantly, “Be a Superdonor!” is easily shareable on social media, a vital component of modern marketing in the form of social proof. People get to show their pride and increase their social status by posting on their Facebook or Twitter how they are a Superdonor. This makes their friends curious about what it means to be a Superdonor, since that is an appealing and emotionally resonant phrase.
Regarding how the average person views this, Intentional Insights is currently test-marketing this phrase through publishing articles featuring the Superdonor concept. So far, it seem quite appealing. For example, this article in The Huffington Post highlighting the Superdonor concept, and has already been shared quite a bit on social media, for example over a 150 times on StumbleUpon alone.
I generally don’t perceive the Zizek et. al. crowd as relevant. All talk, no action.
My gut reaction to this is pretty negative. I’ve considered donating to be a sort of obvious thing that you have to do if you don’t want to be personally responsible for unnecessary death and suffering, and something that’s expected rather than something that you can brag about. So seeing things promoted in this way strikes me as, well, shallow marketing. But don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with marketing moral obligations if that’s what it takes to get more people to give their money. I read somewhere else that you shouldn’t fall prey to the fallacy of assuming that other people will think the same way that you do, so I shouldn’t assume that other people will also have a negative reaction to this. If this works to convince more people to give their money then great, I’m all for it. My gut reaction is negative but my think-about-it reaction is not. I hope I’m not derailing the conversation or the spirit of your project, I’m just giving you my data point as an example of how some people might have negative psychological reactions.
But how do you think the average person might view this? I thought it was pretty straightforward that people are disturbed and made uncomfortable by other people’s signalling of moral superiority. That’s why people get bothered by vegans and altruists, even if they’re not bragging at all, just because they are made uncomfortable and feel inferior in the presence of do-gooders.
Moreover, I can imagine plenty of EA critics using this as a great example of philanthropy becoming a cultural fetish that gives people psychological rationalization to dodge personal responsibility for participation in capitalism and avoiding systemic change. It plays right into the hands of Zizek et al. But I haven’t heard much from that crowd lately, so I don’t know if they’re still relevant.
Kblog, thanks for the feedback!
First, let me commend you for avoiding the typical mind fallacy. I think it’s very cool that you are able to draw that difference between that intuitive “ugh” gut reaction and the think-about-it reaction.
Indeed, it’s a valuable data point. I think it gets to the heart of the matter. The Superdonor concept is not personally appealing to me, and to many other EAs. However, it is appealing to many people who wish to donate for reasons other than “it’s the obvious thing to do.”
Regarding your point about marketing moral obligations, here are some other reasons people give and ways that the Superdonor concept can appeal to them, which I outlined in the earlier Superdonor post.
Regarding how the average person views this, Intentional Insights is currently test-marketing this phrase through publishing articles featuring the Superdonor concept. So far, it seem quite appealing. For example, this article in The Huffington Post highlighting the Superdonor concept, and has already been shared quite a bit on social media, for example over a 150 times on StumbleUpon alone.
I generally don’t perceive the Zizek et. al. crowd as relevant. All talk, no action.