When I donate money to charity, I try to visualize the effects of my donations.
It’s easy for donating money to not make you very happy. You write a check and you don’t get to see the consequences of your actions. It isn’t as viscerally rewarding as, say, talking to a friend who’s been through a bad time or helping someone move or setting up two people on a date– even though donating money can have a positive effect hundreds of times larger than those actions.
Therefore, when I make a donation, I try to make the consequences of my donation very very salient.
I’ve found several advantages to the practice of visualizing my donations. Most obviously, it increases my sense of life satisfaction and pride in my accomplishments and increases my motivation to donate in the future. However, I’ve also found that it aligns my system 1 better with my system 2 when I’m thinking about my values. “I consider saving a child’s life to be about as good as doubling that child’s income” is very abstract, and my intuition doesn’t have a lot to say about it. If I imagine a parent holding their alive child, and a person who can afford an iron roof and enough food, my intuition has very strong opinions about both of these situations. Through this method, I connect my donations with all parts of my brain, instead of just the ‘explicit verbal thinking’ part.
Some charities are easier than others to visualize. GiveDirectly is particularly easy to visualize, because of GiveDirectly Live. I can scroll through GDLive and take credit for cash transfers up to 83% of the value of my donation (the rest goes to overhead). The life-saving GiveWell charities are also particularly easy to visualize: you can divide your donation by the cost per life saved and get an estimate of how many children you’ve saved.
Life-improving global poverty charities other than GiveDirectly, animal charities, and existential risk charities are harder to visualize. The GiveWell cost-effectiveness spreadsheet suggests that deworming is about ten times as good as GiveDirectly, so if you donate to a deworming charity you can do the GiveDirectly Live thing but multiply your donation by ten.
Animal charities and existential risk charities are more difficult to motivate. I suggest studying what the charity you’re donating to does, coming up with some reasonable thing that your donation is buying, and then following the chain of how it winds up improving the world. For example, a ten thousand dollar donation to the Good Food Institute might pay for an eighth of the salary of a person specializing in outreach to startups, and they identify funding opportunities for cultured meat startups, and that makes it more likely that cultured meat is developed.
I think it’s important, when you visualize, to make sure that a larger donation gets you a more rewarding visualization. People do not in general do this on their own. If your donations save five children’s lives, then you should make a particular effort to imagine five separate children that you saved and give yourself credit for each of them.
I haven’t explored this personally, but I’m interested in thinking about ways to bring the effects of my donations to mind more often. For example, I’ve considered making a collage of the benefits that come from my donations: a picture of a child for each child’s life saved, an iron roof for each GiveDirectly-cash-transfer-equivalent increase in consumption, a chicken for each donation equivalent to a year of veganism, a criminal for each person saved from the US justice system, a star for each appropriate unit decrease in the chance of human extinction, etc.
This, except with a bunch of pictures of African children.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on how to make the effects of one’s donations more ‘real’, or other methods to increase warmfuzzies from donations and align warmfuzzies with effectiveness?
Thing of Things 
Pingback: Rational Feed – deluks917
How do you keep this from turning into negative thoughts instead? Like with the scope sensitivity, of thinking of the people who donate way more than you and how they’re better and you’re not, or immediately thinking how you should donate even more, why aren’t you you horrible person.
Also any advice for making this work if you can’t afford enough donations to save an entire person? (Does that still matter even? If so, how can you avoid feeling it doesn’t?)
LikeLike
Perhaps imagine more people donating, where you save a person together? That may also produce a feeling of shared effort.
LikeLike
On the avoiding-negative-thoughts: my primary solution there is to just not be excessively concerned with my goodness as a person or with how it compares with other people’s goodness levels. I instead run more on a “donating fulfills my goals better than not-donating, therefore I should do that” technique, with the function of the visualization being chiefly to ensure that I recognize and treat as salient the degree to which donating does fulfill my goals.
On making the visualization thing work in absence of enough donation money to save a whole person: I tend to visualize expected lifetime rather than expected lives for precisely this reason. When I donate $15 to the AMF, it would be hard to imagine saving one three-hundredth of a human, or to imagine a one in three-hundred chance of saving someone, but it’s easy to imagine three or four more months of life experiences happening, which is essentially what the expected value of my donation is, even if the distribution of that expected value across cases is somewhat more uneven in reality than in my visualizations. So I suppose I’m sacrificing a bit of veracity, but I feel like I keep pretty well to the essence of why the donations are valuable while translating it into a format that produces much more compelling images for small donation counts.
LikeLike
Does anyone know how I could visualize the impact of my donations to MIRI? It’s hard to imagine what a .1% chance of saving the world looks like.
LikeLike
Maybe Eliezer’s “fun theory” sequence, but then take just 1/100th of his utopia.
LikeLike