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.
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.