wdmacaskill comments on Giving What We Can, 80,000 Hours, and Meta-Charity - Less Wrong

44 Post author: wdmacaskill 15 November 2012 08:34PM

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: wdmacaskill 11 November 2012 05:14:03PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for this. Asking people "how much would you have pledged?" is of course only a semi-reliable method of ascertaining how much someone actually would have pledged. Some people - like yourself - might neglect that fact that they would have been convinced by the same arguments from other sources; others might be overoptimistic about how their future self would live up to their youthful ideals. We try to be as conservative as reasonable with our assumptions in this area: we take the data and then err on the side of caution. We assumed that 54% of the pledged donations would have happened anyway, that 25% of donations would have gone to comparably good charities, and that we have a dropout rate amortized over time equivalent to 50% of people dropping out immediately. It's possible that these assumptions still aren't conservative enough.

Comment author: Strange7 11 November 2012 07:46:20PM 3 points [-]

Perhaps it would also be useful to work backwards? That is, figure out exactly how conservative the assumptions need to be to put the value of a donation below the break-even point.

Comment author: anholt 13 November 2012 03:04:39AM 0 points [-]

Excellent. That sounds pretty reasonable, and that's pretty impressive leveraging given those assumptions.