= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jsalvatier 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.
I agree. I share Mass_Driver's emotional desire to diversify even though I know it's wrong.
I'd probably actually diversify since it seems like a positive sum game between the egoist in me and the altruist in me. The egoist more wants actual, real status/reward, which tends to only be gained when you pick an actual winner. People don't give you any praise for anything other than actual, real successes, I find. And if the expected marginal utilities of the top 5 causes are comparable (the same to within a factor of 2), the altruist isn't actually conceding very much.