JGWeissman comments on Why CFAR? - Less Wrong

71 Post author: AnnaSalamon 28 December 2013 11:25PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (117)
Tags: cfar fundraiser

Comments (117)

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

Comment author: brazil84 31 December 2013 09:02:18PM -1 points [-]

I would agree with your reasoning if CFAR claimed that they can reliably turn people into altruists free of cognitive biases within the span of their four-day workshop. If they claimed that and were correct in that, then it shouldn't matter whether they (a) require up-front payment and offer a refund or (b) have people decide what to pay after the workshop, since a bias-free altruist would make end up paying the same in either case.

It's not so much what CFAR is claiming as what their goals are and which outcomes they prefer.

The goal is to create people who are effective, rational do-gooders. I see four main possibilities here:

First, that they succeed in doing so.

Second, that they fail and go out of business.

Third, that they become a sort of self-help cult like the Landmark Forum, i.e. they charge people money without delivering much benefit.

Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.

Obviously (1) is the top choice. But if (1) does not occur, which would they prefer -- (2), or some combination of (3) and (4)? By charging money up front, they are on the path to (3) or (4) as a second choice. Which goes against their stated goal.

So let's assume that they do not claim to be able to turn people into effective rational do-gooders. The fact remains that they hope to do so. And one needs to ask, what do they hope for as a second choice?

Comment author: JGWeissman 01 January 2014 02:17:11AM 0 points [-]

CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational. This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders. Their goal is not to create effective, rational do-gooders out of blank slates but make valuable marginal increases in this combination of traits, often by making people who already rank highly in these areas even better.

They also use the same workshops to make people in general more effective and rational, which they can charge money for to fund the workshops, and gives them more data to test their training methods on. That they don't turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.

Fourth, they become a sort of fraternal organization, i.e. membership does bring benefits mainly from being able to network with other members.

CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.

Comment author: brazil84 01 January 2014 12:57:51PM -1 points [-]

CFAR can achieve its goal of creating effective, rational do-gooders by taking existing do-gooders and making them more effective and rational.

I wasn't aware that this was the strategy; perhaps I read the original post too quickly.

This is why they offer scholarships to existing do-gooders.

Well are they attempting to turn non-do-gooders into do-gooders?

That they don't turn people in general into do-gooders does not constitute a failure of the whole mission. These activities support the mission without directly fulfilling it.

Perhaps, but that strikes me as a dangerous first step towards a kind of mission creep. Towards a scenario (3) or (4).

CFAR is creating an alumni network to create benefits on top of increased effectiveness and rationality.

Same problem.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit