You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Viliam_Bur comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Mestroyer 24 September 2013 01:25AM

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

Comments (261)

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

Comment author: niceguyanon 25 September 2013 04:44:32AM *  2 points [-]

Do I have a bias or useful heuristic? If a signal is easy to fake, is it a bias to assume that it is disingenuous or is it an useful heuristic?

I read Robert Hanson's post about why there are so many charities specifically focusing on kids and he basically summed it up as signalling to seem kind, for potential mates, being a major factor. There were some good rebuttals in the comment sections but whether or not signalling is at play is not the point, I'm sure to a certain degree it is, how much? I don't know. The point is that I automatically dismiss the authenticity of a signal if the signal is difficult to authenticate. In this example it is possible for people to both, signal that they care about children for a potential mate, as well as actually really caring about children ( e.g. innate emotional response).

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is a question about signalling and how I strongly associate easy to fake signals with dishonest signalling, not about charities.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 25 September 2013 09:23:38AM 1 point [-]

I agree with your last sentence. The important thing should be how much good does the charity really do to those children. Are they really making their lives better, or is it merely some nonsense to "show that we care"?

Because there are many charities (at least in my country) focusing on providing children things they don't really need; such as donating boring used books to children in orphanages. Obviously, "giving to children in orphanages" is a touching signal of caring, and most people don't realize that those children already have more books than they can read (and they usually don't wish to read the kind of books other people are throwing away, because honestly no one does). In this case, the real help to children in orphanages would be trying to change the legislation to make their adoption easier (again, this is an issue in my country, in your part of the world the situation may be different), helping them avoid abuse, or providing them human contact and meaningful activities. But most people don't care about the details, not even enough to learn those details.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 September 2013 02:14:28PM 0 points [-]

I suspect there's also some sentimentality about books in play.

Comment author: ChristianKl 25 September 2013 09:26:33PM 1 point [-]

Yes, throwing a book away is nearly like burning it. Giving it to an orphanage is completely guilt free.