= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on $100 for the best article on efficient charity -- deadline Wednesday 1st December - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (57)
You can still integrate. I doubt that the meta-errors are really important differentiators between villagereach and Oxfam.
It sounds like meta -errors are not your true rejection
I'd guess that your true rejection might be wanting to avoid the emotional pain of failure if you stake all $ on one particularly good-looking charity which then goes on to be exposed as a fraud.
Or possibly your true rejection is the emotional hit you'd take from worrying about whether you got it wrong.
There are many non-rational reasons people have for placing a certainty premium on charity.
Which actually isn't all that irrational if we think of it as a decision theory problem with diminishing returns on money - making sure that at least some of your money is used well becomes more important than gambling that all of it is used well.
Of course, given the nature of what's being dome with the money, the returns diminish much, much more slowly than we're used to; diversity shouldn't be a concern until you're Onassis-ish rich.
As clearly stated above, for small donors marginal returns don't diminish.