I found this insufferable to read. I couldn’t even finish reading it. (I stopped after the third of the ten “tips”.) Like Alexander can write about whatever he wants, but is there really a large...
I found this insufferable to read. I couldn’t even finish reading it. (I stopped after the third of the ten “tips”.) Like Alexander can write about whatever he wants, but is there really a large enough audience of novice philanthropists out there who have the same sort of pathological condition of having some basic grasp of science and math, yet being so astoundingly ignorant of any and all domains outside his own? Like, the enormity of the ignorance necessary to conjure up this observation:
Every time I thought I knew approximately how many different variables I needed to consider, my ship accidentally got blown off course into an entire undiscovered new continent of variable-considering, full of golden temples and angry cannibals.
Rather than step back at this point and decide there must be someone else more qualified to dole out the money he raises, Alexander decides instead to act as a source of guidance to others. This is the sentence that precedes the “ten tips” listicle.
The privilege and hubris is gobsmacking! As if there is a cadre of other ignoramuses sitting at their computers wondering how they too can dole out millions in a way that primarily makes them feel good, and secondarily might actually do some good in the world (pending Alexander’s and his friends’ self-admittedly inadequate calculus blesses some grant proposals better than random chance).
It's a long post and he writes about it in a jokey way that's not to everyone's taste. I'm not sure "hubris" is right though, as he repeatedly admits that he doesn't know what he's doing. In part...
It's a long post and he writes about it in a jokey way that's not to everyone's taste. I'm not sure "hubris" is right though, as he repeatedly admits that he doesn't know what he's doing. In part that's why he wrote the post:
If all grantmakers secretly relied on other grantmakers to avoid the impossibly complex question of figuring out who was good, then my decisions might accidentally move orders of magnitude more money than I expected. It’s all nice and well to replace your own judgment with Patrick Collison’s. But what if someone tried to replace their own judgment with mine?
I have no solution here except to type up this 5000 word essay on how I really don’t know what I’m doing and you shouldn’t trust me. Those who have ears to hear, let them listen!
Yes, he then goes on to give his advice but I don't think anyone's going to treat him as an expert at that point?
It seems like a very weird and messed up situation, and probably a sign of inequality, that there are apparently rich people who want to do good things but have such trouble finding new charitable causes that they're willing to take a chance on a celebrity blogger with no expertise on it.
(My suspicion, though, is that most charitable giving is made using decision-making processes just as bad, but people don't normally write in public about how they did it.)
I can’t think of a better example of hubris than to be self-aware of one’s own lack of expertise, and yet persist in giving advice. Unless that is some sort of humor that is passing over my head....
I can’t think of a better example of hubris than to be self-aware of one’s own lack of expertise, and yet persist in giving advice. Unless that is some sort of humor that is passing over my head. In which case, to each their own. (I took this piece as earnest advice-giving—maybe I’m not attuned to Alexander’s style, though. I’ve read other posts of his and didn’t find them so objectionable.)
I mean, in this particular instance he's outright saying that he's bad, and that this is hard. Sharing what he's learned over this process where he failed a lot seems like a valuable thing? I...
I mean, in this particular instance he's outright saying that he's bad, and that this is hard. Sharing what he's learned over this process where he failed a lot seems like a valuable thing? I certainly wouldn't advocate for him getting more money to do it again, but by now he has more experience in doing microgrants than most people. Is that a good thing?
Yeah, and being so arrogant as to not believe this going into the whole thing is a big red flag to me. I really don't think documenting one's hubristic travails is worth much, especially when...
I mean, in this particular instance he's outright saying that he's bad, and that this is hard.
Yeah, and being so arrogant as to not believe this going into the whole thing is a big red flag to me.
Sharing what he's learned over this process where he failed a lot seems like a valuable thing?
I really don't think documenting one's hubristic travails is worth much, especially when those who have enough sense to attract the kind of money we're talking about here are unlikely to have the lack of sense to try to do the same thing.
I certainly wouldn't advocate for him getting more money to do it again, but by now he has more experience in doing microgrants than most people. Is that a good thing?
I would go so far as to advocate that he should give the money back and link to professionally managed charities instead. If you really want to get into philanthropy, professionally, then maybe try working for a charity first and get some experience? To me, deciding to manage a microgrant program yourself is about as delusional as waking up and saying, "I think I'll become an astronaut" and then proceeding to try to do that without any sort of affiliation with a space agency. Like, sure, maybe a few people seriously want to read blogs about how to become an amateur astronaut. But, those who can't tell the difference between the amateur vs. NASA, SpaceX, etc. really need their heads checked.
I've made a profession out of helping people who started businesses, and so my experience is that absolutely everyone underestimates the difficulty and complexity of things they've never done. It...
I've made a profession out of helping people who started businesses, and so my experience is that absolutely everyone underestimates the difficulty and complexity of things they've never done. It makes me more forgiving of people who're trying something entirely new, especially when they document how challenging doing new things actually is.
Also, he did actually distribute money to organizations, so even if it wasn't perfectly efficient, it still moved money from rich people to organizations in need. He tried something new, suffered through it, funded some stuff, and never wants to do it again. This doesn't sound like complete success, but also better than many potential outcomes, regardless of his hubris.
Well I think your experience is possibly biased toward a particular population that has a higher baseline of arrogance. In my experience, arrogant people underestimate difficulty and complexity....
my experience is that absolutely everyone underestimates the difficulty and complexity of things they've never done
Well I think your experience is possibly biased toward a particular population that has a higher baseline of arrogance. In my experience, arrogant people underestimate difficulty and complexity. In my experience, humble people are quicker to admit that other domains are likely at least as rife with "golden temples and angry cannibals" as their own domain. Those people are much less likely to start their own businesses, though.
Yes, and that's why I'm here providing a different perspective. Here is someone who admitted to his hubris and talked about it for everyone to see. You see the confession of hubris and decry him...
Yes, and that's why I'm here providing a different perspective. Here is someone who admitted to his hubris and talked about it for everyone to see. You see the confession of hubris and decry him for the hubris. I see it and praise him for the public confession. I don't even like the guy, but I think that it's very hard to publicly struggle with something, and the fact that he chose to make those struggles public is worth recognizing.
I suppose so, in this instance. I didn't get the impression that Alexander is earnestly trying to dissuade anyone else from doing what he did. It seems like the majority of the piece is examining...
You see the confession of hubris and decry him for the hubris.
I suppose so, in this instance. I didn't get the impression that Alexander is earnestly trying to dissuade anyone else from doing what he did. It seems like the majority of the piece is examining fine-grained mistakes after committing to doling out the money himself, so that others might do a marginally better job in such doling. Whereas, the more valuable advice, in my opinion, would be strongly advising not to make the mistake of attempting to be an amateur philanthropist in the first place. It's the presupposition that others will inevitably and ought to follow in his footsteps that gets me—that presupposition is even present in the title.
I truly don't think any professional philanthropists start out their careers from this stepping stone. That is why I suggested, if someone were serious about this, that they go apply for a job at...
Any professional philanthropist starts out as an amateur philanthropist, so it is inevitable.
I truly don't think any professional philanthropists start out their careers from this stepping stone. That is why I suggested, if someone were serious about this, that they go apply for a job at a charitable foundation and get some experience before striking out on their own. The fact that this isn't Alexander's primary conclusion is what set off my critical reaction.
That strikes me as fairly even handed, not strongly favouring persuasion or dissuasion. I'm kind of with him on the idea that there's a high potential upside in taking these comparatively small,...
So should you run your own grants program, or donate to an existing charity?
If you have any of the above comparative advantages, if you plan to work hard enough to realize them, and if you win spiritual battles so consistently that you have to fight off recruiters for your local paladin order - I say try the program.
If not - and especially if you expect to half-ass the evaluation process, or succumb to the pressure to give to feel-good causes that aren’t really effective - then donate to existing charities. I really don’t want to make this sound like the loser option: donating to existing charities is usually the right thing to do, and choosing the less flashy but more effective option is also a heroic act.
If you’re on the fence, I’d err on the side of doing it, since the upside is potentially very high and the downside limited.
There’s one other reason to run a microgrants program: you think it would be fun.
I have no moral objection to this. Nothing along the lines of “wouldn’t it be better to something something expected utility?” Realistically the highest expected utility thing is whatever gets you interested enough to donate. If that’s a grants program, do it.
My actual objection is: no it won’t be.
That strikes me as fairly even handed, not strongly favouring persuasion or dissuasion. I'm kind of with him on the idea that there's a high potential upside in taking these comparatively small, in the scheme of things, sums and deliberately chancing them on something outside the status quo - and I think that "the highest expected utility thing is whatever gets you interested enough to donate" is a genuinely important piece of the puzzle.
I think it's sort of earnest in the sense that he wants to share what he learned and what he'd do differently, but the advice shouldn't be looked at in any kind of authoritative way. Maybe it's an...
I think it's sort of earnest in the sense that he wants to share what he learned and what he'd do differently, but the advice shouldn't be looked at in any kind of authoritative way. Maybe it's an inconsistent tone thing?
The question is, in the unlikely event that you wanted to run a grants program, where would you find better advice?
Personally I see no reason to get into this situation. I hate making consequential judgement calls like this. When I was at Google I found interviewing candidates to be the worst part of the job.
It seems like a better idea to stick to giving to GiveWell.
I thought it was quite an interesting read! More than anything I think the structure was his way of breaking down the process, and to some extent talking to his past self - I didn't get the...
I thought it was quite an interesting read! More than anything I think the structure was his way of breaking down the process, and to some extent talking to his past self - I didn't get the impression that the primary goal was actually to instruct others. Even then, there probably are at least one or two "ignoramuses sitting at their computers wondering how they too can dole out millions" who'll come across it, and who are probably disproportionately likely to listen to someone with the kind of connections and experience he's demonstrating here, so I'm not actually writing that value off, despite not thinking it was ever the main goal.
Towards the end he does talk a bit about the current state of grant funding, the comparative advantages he has (not least: generating sufficient interest that people gave him the money in the first place), and the fact that many of the existing large organisations are telling him they're already more constrained by opportunities than by finances. He was even, in my opinion, refreshingly honest about the difficulties he describes as "spiritual battles", i.e. the challenge of prioritising effectiveness (to the best of his ability) over feeling good.
I have some vague memory that he's a controversial figure, and this is one of a grand total of three posts I've ever read on his blog, so maybe I'm missing vital context but it honestly seemed positive to me.
Well he did pull in many subject-matter experts to help evaluate the proposals, and knew that he would be able to do so. I find it very hard to look at the list of projects that got funded and say...
Rather than step back at this point and decide there must be someone else more qualified to dole out the money he raises, Alexander decides instead to act as a source of guidance to others. This is the sentence that precedes the “ten tips” listicle.
Well he did pull in many subject-matter experts to help evaluate the proposals, and knew that he would be able to do so.
I find it very hard to look at the list of projects that got funded and say that any of those donations were wrong to make. Seeing so many interesting projects makes me very interested to see if I can donate to some of them, find others like them, or donate to whatever next grants round or grants-like project he does next. Seeing that interesting selection of projects and the amount of funds he raised make me inclined to agree with him that he might have a comparative advantage in getting interesting projects submitted to him and in getting donations; I'm not that bothered if he personally isn't great at evaluating the proposals and has to use helpers that he has available to turn to.
As if there is a cadre of other ignoramuses sitting at their computers wondering how they too can dole out millions in a way that primarily makes them feel good, and secondarily might actually do some good in the world
I feel this might be taking the title too literally. Maybe there are a few people in the readership he's specifically trying to instruct about running grants programs, but the framing mostly seems to just be to talk about his experience behind the scenes. I think the content is also interesting to people trying to find good causes to donate smaller amounts to, and to people who have ever considered seeking funding for projects.
I found this insufferable to read. I couldn’t even finish reading it. (I stopped after the third of the ten “tips”.) Like Alexander can write about whatever he wants, but is there really a large enough audience of novice philanthropists out there who have the same sort of pathological condition of having some basic grasp of science and math, yet being so astoundingly ignorant of any and all domains outside his own? Like, the enormity of the ignorance necessary to conjure up this observation:
Rather than step back at this point and decide there must be someone else more qualified to dole out the money he raises, Alexander decides instead to act as a source of guidance to others. This is the sentence that precedes the “ten tips” listicle.
The privilege and hubris is gobsmacking! As if there is a cadre of other ignoramuses sitting at their computers wondering how they too can dole out millions in a way that primarily makes them feel good, and secondarily might actually do some good in the world (pending Alexander’s and his friends’ self-admittedly inadequate calculus blesses some grant proposals better than random chance).
It's a long post and he writes about it in a jokey way that's not to everyone's taste. I'm not sure "hubris" is right though, as he repeatedly admits that he doesn't know what he's doing. In part that's why he wrote the post:
Yes, he then goes on to give his advice but I don't think anyone's going to treat him as an expert at that point?
It seems like a very weird and messed up situation, and probably a sign of inequality, that there are apparently rich people who want to do good things but have such trouble finding new charitable causes that they're willing to take a chance on a celebrity blogger with no expertise on it.
(My suspicion, though, is that most charitable giving is made using decision-making processes just as bad, but people don't normally write in public about how they did it.)
I can’t think of a better example of hubris than to be self-aware of one’s own lack of expertise, and yet persist in giving advice. Unless that is some sort of humor that is passing over my head. In which case, to each their own. (I took this piece as earnest advice-giving—maybe I’m not attuned to Alexander’s style, though. I’ve read other posts of his and didn’t find them so objectionable.)
I mean, in this particular instance he's outright saying that he's bad, and that this is hard. Sharing what he's learned over this process where he failed a lot seems like a valuable thing? I certainly wouldn't advocate for him getting more money to do it again, but by now he has more experience in doing microgrants than most people. Is that a good thing?
Yeah, and being so arrogant as to not believe this going into the whole thing is a big red flag to me.
I really don't think documenting one's hubristic travails is worth much, especially when those who have enough sense to attract the kind of money we're talking about here are unlikely to have the lack of sense to try to do the same thing.
I would go so far as to advocate that he should give the money back and link to professionally managed charities instead. If you really want to get into philanthropy, professionally, then maybe try working for a charity first and get some experience? To me, deciding to manage a microgrant program yourself is about as delusional as waking up and saying, "I think I'll become an astronaut" and then proceeding to try to do that without any sort of affiliation with a space agency. Like, sure, maybe a few people seriously want to read blogs about how to become an amateur astronaut. But, those who can't tell the difference between the amateur vs. NASA, SpaceX, etc. really need their heads checked.
I've made a profession out of helping people who started businesses, and so my experience is that absolutely everyone underestimates the difficulty and complexity of things they've never done. It makes me more forgiving of people who're trying something entirely new, especially when they document how challenging doing new things actually is.
Also, he did actually distribute money to organizations, so even if it wasn't perfectly efficient, it still moved money from rich people to organizations in need. He tried something new, suffered through it, funded some stuff, and never wants to do it again. This doesn't sound like complete success, but also better than many potential outcomes, regardless of his hubris.
Well I think your experience is possibly biased toward a particular population that has a higher baseline of arrogance. In my experience, arrogant people underestimate difficulty and complexity. In my experience, humble people are quicker to admit that other domains are likely at least as rife with "golden temples and angry cannibals" as their own domain. Those people are much less likely to start their own businesses, though.
Yes, and that's why I'm here providing a different perspective. Here is someone who admitted to his hubris and talked about it for everyone to see. You see the confession of hubris and decry him for the hubris. I see it and praise him for the public confession. I don't even like the guy, but I think that it's very hard to publicly struggle with something, and the fact that he chose to make those struggles public is worth recognizing.
I suppose so, in this instance. I didn't get the impression that Alexander is earnestly trying to dissuade anyone else from doing what he did. It seems like the majority of the piece is examining fine-grained mistakes after committing to doling out the money himself, so that others might do a marginally better job in such doling. Whereas, the more valuable advice, in my opinion, would be strongly advising not to make the mistake of attempting to be an amateur philanthropist in the first place. It's the presupposition that others will inevitably and ought to follow in his footsteps that gets me—that presupposition is even present in the title.
Any professional philanthropist starts out as an amateur philanthropist, so it is inevitable.
I truly don't think any professional philanthropists start out their careers from this stepping stone. That is why I suggested, if someone were serious about this, that they go apply for a job at a charitable foundation and get some experience before striking out on their own. The fact that this isn't Alexander's primary conclusion is what set off my critical reaction.
That strikes me as fairly even handed, not strongly favouring persuasion or dissuasion. I'm kind of with him on the idea that there's a high potential upside in taking these comparatively small, in the scheme of things, sums and deliberately chancing them on something outside the status quo - and I think that "the highest expected utility thing is whatever gets you interested enough to donate" is a genuinely important piece of the puzzle.
I think it's sort of earnest in the sense that he wants to share what he learned and what he'd do differently, but the advice shouldn't be looked at in any kind of authoritative way. Maybe it's an inconsistent tone thing?
The question is, in the unlikely event that you wanted to run a grants program, where would you find better advice?
Personally I see no reason to get into this situation. I hate making consequential judgement calls like this. When I was at Google I found interviewing candidates to be the worst part of the job.
It seems like a better idea to stick to giving to GiveWell.
I thought it was quite an interesting read! More than anything I think the structure was his way of breaking down the process, and to some extent talking to his past self - I didn't get the impression that the primary goal was actually to instruct others. Even then, there probably are at least one or two "ignoramuses sitting at their computers wondering how they too can dole out millions" who'll come across it, and who are probably disproportionately likely to listen to someone with the kind of connections and experience he's demonstrating here, so I'm not actually writing that value off, despite not thinking it was ever the main goal.
Towards the end he does talk a bit about the current state of grant funding, the comparative advantages he has (not least: generating sufficient interest that people gave him the money in the first place), and the fact that many of the existing large organisations are telling him they're already more constrained by opportunities than by finances. He was even, in my opinion, refreshingly honest about the difficulties he describes as "spiritual battles", i.e. the challenge of prioritising effectiveness (to the best of his ability) over feeling good.
I have some vague memory that he's a controversial figure, and this is one of a grand total of three posts I've ever read on his blog, so maybe I'm missing vital context but it honestly seemed positive to me.
Well he did pull in many subject-matter experts to help evaluate the proposals, and knew that he would be able to do so.
I find it very hard to look at the list of projects that got funded and say that any of those donations were wrong to make. Seeing so many interesting projects makes me very interested to see if I can donate to some of them, find others like them, or donate to whatever next grants round or grants-like project he does next. Seeing that interesting selection of projects and the amount of funds he raised make me inclined to agree with him that he might have a comparative advantage in getting interesting projects submitted to him and in getting donations; I'm not that bothered if he personally isn't great at evaluating the proposals and has to use helpers that he has available to turn to.
I feel this might be taking the title too literally. Maybe there are a few people in the readership he's specifically trying to instruct about running grants programs, but the framing mostly seems to just be to talk about his experience behind the scenes. I think the content is also interesting to people trying to find good causes to donate smaller amounts to, and to people who have ever considered seeking funding for projects.