timtyler comments on Efficient Charity - Less Wrong

31 Post author: multifoliaterose 04 December 2010 10:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (182)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: taw 04 December 2010 08:45:50PM 11 points [-]

Are there any really good reasons for this kind of charity (throwing money at some highly specific problem affecting some very poor people without changing anything about the system), as opposed to paying for vastly underfunded highly scalable public goods such as wikileaks, wikipedia, or even GiveWell for that matter?

In the world we currently live in, nearly all "poor" people are reasonably well off by historical standards, with their standards of living extremely rapidly improving anyway. Global inequality is far below historical peak as well.

I like what GiveWell does on the margin, but we'll run out of abjectly poor people outside warzones (like DRC, Afghanistan) or disaster zones (like Haiti) before they get good at what they're doing.

To give you some perspective, take a look at this map. You see those black areas? They still live longer, are better nourished, better educated, and better off in every possible sense than world average just a century ago and very rapidly improving.

Comment author: timtyler 04 December 2010 10:02:29PM 5 points [-]

Is GiveWell a "good" charity? Have they assessed themselves?

Comment author: Louie 05 December 2010 12:10:44AM *  6 points [-]

It looks like they have evaluated themselves.

I'm not surprised they would do that. They are the canonical example of a ridiculously transparent organization. For instance, their admission of their own mistakes and shortcomings is heroically vigorous.

Comment author: Document 05 December 2010 08:56:23PM 0 points [-]

I searched for "metafilter" and was disappointed, then looked closer and realized the incident actually was mentioned, under "overaggressive and inappropriate marketing". Huh.

Comment author: shokwave 06 December 2010 02:53:34PM *  1 point [-]

Löb's Theorem! Trust GiveWell because you evaluate it as trustworthy; not because it has evaluated itself!

That reduces self-evaluation to signalling. I suppose you could factor "they costly signal transparency" into your evaluation of GiveWell.

edit: Having read about their disciplinary action, I would like to revise my previous statement to "they extremely costly signal transparency"

Comment author: wedrifid 05 December 2010 12:08:27AM 0 points [-]

Is GiveWell a "good" charity? Have they assessed themselves?

If they have would there be much point in having made the assessment public?