A giving approach that ranks options only by estimated expected value, with no preference for better-grounded estimates, is flawed.

Added to korrents 18 Aug 2011 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Related korrents

Our reading — they may agree, disagree or merely touch the same thing. Closest first: a shared subject counts for most, then how near the wording is.

• The deeper anyone digs into a charity's cost-effectiveness estimate, the more unwarranted optimism they find, so the right prior on giving is a sceptical one. HKHolden Karnofsky18 Aug 2011similar wording
• Letting one calculation take over a giving decision is disturbing, and there is still a strong case for it if you want your ethics to be principled and about other people. HKHolden Karnofsky15 Feb 2022similar wording
• Ranking charities by their estimated expected value alone removes any reward for being transparent about how they actually work. HKHolden Karnofsky18 Aug 2011similar wording
• A world where altruists followed expected-value estimates would be one where nearly all of them helped distant strangers instead of the people around them, and that world would be worse. HKHolden Karnofsky18 Aug 2011similar wording
• Declining many-worlds because it extrapolates past what we can observe is methodologically respectable and still a failure of nerve. SCSean Carroll22 Apr 2024similar wording

See this on the map →