In terms of hearing diverse perspectives, I suspect there are more effective ways to accomplish that goal than having diverse funders. For example, a funder could require that a nonprofit lay their thinking out publicly in detail, and offer prizes for the best critiques other people write in response to their thinking. That way you’re optimizing for hearing from people who think they have something to add.
Optimising for hearing from people who think they have something to add is not the same as optimising for heaing from people who actually have something to add.
Sure, but if you only award prizes for the latter, I think people will gradually recognize the difference.
Maybe your point is that the opinions of loudmouths like myself will be overrepresented in such a scheme? Allowing for private submissions could help address that.
In terms of hearing diverse perspectives, I suspect there are more effective ways to accomplish that goal than having diverse funders. For example, a funder could require that a nonprofit lay their thinking out publicly in detail, and offer prizes for the best critiques other people write in response to their thinking. That way you’re optimizing for hearing from people who think they have something to add.
Optimising for hearing from people who think they have something to add is not the same as optimising for heaing from people who actually have something to add.
Sure, but if you only award prizes for the latter, I think people will gradually recognize the difference.
Maybe your point is that the opinions of loudmouths like myself will be overrepresented in such a scheme? Allowing for private submissions could help address that.