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.

OrphanWilde comments on “Be A Superdonor!”: Promoting Effective Altruism by Appealing to the Heart - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: Gleb_Tsipursky 09 November 2015 06:20PM

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

Comments (82)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 11 November 2015 08:41:32PM *  0 points [-]

As you said in the OP, "we leave huge sums of money on the table". Shaping people so that you could get at their money easier is what marketing scum does.

I think that's a bit of an extreme way to put it... people who are emotionally driven see emotional appeals as the proper way to convince people. "You think too much" and " sometimes you just have to go with your gut" is an inherently appealing thing to them - regardless of intelligence levels.

Essentially, they WANT emotional appeals like this one - I saw several emotionally driven (and smart) friends who shared this commercial and basically said (I'm translating now) "It's nice to see an emotional appeal that actually has a good message/purpose".

That's what effective altruism can offer, marketing that has a good message and leads to good outcomes. Convincing people by logic is no more "inherently good" than convincing people by emotion (at least, I haven't seen anyone provide a convincing proof of either's inherent goodness or badness), it just depends on their preferred method of thinking.

Comment author: OrphanWilde 11 November 2015 09:01:53PM 1 point [-]

That's what effective altruism can offer, marketing that has a good message and leads to good outcomes. Convincing people by logic is no more "inherently good" than convincing people by emotion (at least, I haven't seen anyone provide a convincing proof of either's inherent goodness or badness), it just depends on their preferred method of thinking.

That's not what the original poster is proposing, however. The original poster is proposing convincing people, through social status bonuses, to donate money. The original poster isn't proposing appealing to people's better natures, but through encouraging their baser natures.

That's where the morality enters into it, I believe.