Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of holes in almost every article in mass media publications, as they must necessarily summarize. Whether you notice the holes or not probably depends on how well the article confirms or contradicts your biases, giving you an emotional payoff to finding the holes - or avoiding finding them.

No, correlation is not causation.

However, the article noted that when a participant was lead to believe they were higher or lower on the social ladder, that changed the amounts they gave or believed was right to give. --This doesn't prove causation of course, but it does suggest with some strength that a higher perceived social position does affect your decisions when it comes to charity.

One last thought... You may consider yourself poor, but you don't know the scales they used in the experiment. It's possible that you aren't as poor as you think.

"Charity may not be a rational activity. So perhaps what they were measuring was not selfishness, but rationality."

What grounds do you have for thinking that charity (and presumably altruism in general) is irrational? Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational?

> Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational?

That's pretty much the definition of "rational" as it is applied in Economics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory

There could be an element of self-interest in poor people's support for charity:

> They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity.

They could on some level see themselves as beneficiaries of charity, and be more charity-minded themselves to avoid cognitive dissonance.

That's true, but it doesn't imply that charity is irrational.

If you derive utility from giving money to charity (e.g., you enjoy warm fuzzy feelings) then it is completely rational to do so. Charitable giving is a consumption good just like video games, playing soccer or shopping for clothes.

Indeed but "economic rationality" is a narrow subset of rationality as a whole. And the lines I quoted above seemed to imply that charity is irrational, not just "economically irrational."

Agreed - "economic rationality" is an extremely narrow concept. As an example, it's "rational" to buy yourself a car or an ice cream cone, because you get utility or enjoyment out of it. It's "irrational" to give money to others, because... you don't get enjoyment out of it? Wait, what if you do? A giant problem with the definition, methinks.

Yeah, then there's the fact that approximately 0 people on earth conform to the expectation of economic rationality.

"Hey, it looked like it'd work on the chart!"

I don't think swombat was trying to argue that. It seemed to me like he was just using it as an example of another plausible, though not necessarily true, explanation for the data. The article says that "Statistics show X, obviously Y is the cause" and swombot is saying "Not so fast, there could be many explanations for X. Z would result with the same statistics"

My argument (which you may not believe in) is that charities, like governments, are very inefficient at spending the money donated to them effectively.

What efficiency would a charity need to have to be acceptable for you? Get a number in mind then move on to the next paragraph.

Ok, now, I submit for you consideration the possibility that you just picked a number quite inconsistent with your own behavior, that is, the other efficiencies which you accept as a matter of course. As an example, the efficiency of internal combustion engines.

"I think most charities are an utter waste" ... More or less of a waste than how our taxes are spent? While there are some awful charities out there, there are plenty who offer detailed oversight of how donations are spent. Those tend to call themselves NGOs however, and whether you support them or not is often a matter of political alignment.

I also think taxes are mostly wasted. :-)

I don't mind the idea of paying taxes, mind you - I have nothing against the idea of contributing a large portion of one's income to improving the country that one lives in, I just think most government schemes are ridiculously inefficient.

Government schemes are ridiculously inefficient for a simple reason: they take their money by force. This means that they are not financially accountable to anyone. Yes, you can vote in some new bosses, but those are just new people in charge of using force, so nothing fundamental has actually changed.

For example, if everyone in my area were forced to shop at a specific grocery store, I'm almost certain that their produce department would suck within a few months. But even if it didn't, I would still object to the use of force for basic moral reasons. I'm not a pragmatist.

When you pay taxes, you aren't "contributing" anything. Perhaps you would pay those taxes voluntarily, but that point is moot because you are not given the option of paying them voluntarily.

I gladly pay the annual fee for maintaining our private roads up here, so don't mistake me for a miserly free-riding ingrate who wants to use other people's property for free. I'm just saying that when the initiation of force is involved, people are no longer customers who can take their business elsewhere. Inefficiency is a likely outcome of the initial moral offense.

Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy?

Oh, the lines of accountability are too indirect? Fine, call your cable company and health insurance company and try demanding some direct accountability.

Also, you're free to take your business elsewhere, just live in another first-world country. Oh, they all have higher taxes than the US? Hrm. Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?

> Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy?

He addressed this directly.

> Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?

This kind of snark is not constructive.

Sorry if I'm not constructive. But you ignored my actual point, regarding that fact that he can in fact take his business elsewhere. If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country.

The GP poster is advocating eliminating taxation period, because it's based on force, if I'm understanding things correctly here. How can someone respond constructively to that?

Guess you're right, I'll stop wasting time engaging.

You're right, I could move my entire bodily self somewhere else. My expectations are realistic, so I don't need to revise them. I know that for now, wherever I go, people will demand money from me and will lock me in a cage if I don't give it to them. I also know that many people will support that heartily, because they accept the belief that without such a threat of force, people would not or could not build roads, pick up garbage, create parks, care for their health, educate their children, or protect life and property. I find that view incredibly silly, very much like the old superstitions about the Church which people held 500 years ago.

Of course it's idealistic of me to oppose the initiation of force in principle. But I reject the belief that in a purely voluntary society, people would regress into violent, stupid, and helpless animals. On the contrary, I believe that the initiation of force is responsible for the very level of violence, stupidity, and helplessness we see today.

I was amused to hear you say "too bad you're not running things." I'm sure you realize that is the last thing I would ever want to do. However, I think reasonably competent people like me are perfectly capable of running businesses, providing services such as road construction, garbage removal, education, landscaping, security, package delivery, telephone, and such. Our "budget plans" would be whatever is required to keep customers, owners, and employees happy. It is not my responsibility to devise other people's business plans. It is their responsibility to do it, and without resorting to force.

As for designing our own "countries," I think we'll see a lot more of that sort of thing in the next hundred years. Right now the entrenched State violently opposes such competition, much as the entrenched Church violently opposed heresy long ago. The trend is in the right direction, but it could be awfully bloody and messy along the way.

> If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country.

Unfortunately, the second option there isn't really possible anymore.

> How can someone respond constructively to that?

Have you never encountered this political opinion? Maybe we travel in different circles, but this seems like a pretty common line of argument to me. However, you're right: it's hard to respond to constructively, because you two are operating on different fundamental axioms: 'initiation of force is sometimes okay' versus 'initiation of force is never okay.' This is a pretty big and decisive difference, made from two different ideologies... there's no real way to argue if one is better or worse.

This is getting fairly off-topic, though. If you'd like a further discussion of the libertarian viewpoint on taxes, feel free to email me. I'm not exactly a libertarian anymore, but I was for long enough to explain it to you fairly thoroughly.

Sure, I've encountered lots of stupid opinions that don't make the least bit of sense in reality.

There's exactly one country in the world that just plain does not have taxes: Somalia.

It's a reasonable (but silly and immature) opinion to demand that the country slashes taxes in, say, half, without outlining the spending cuts. Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.

See my response above please. I'm not saying people should slash spending on roads, education, and security by 100%. That would indeed be madness, and utterly self-destructive. I am simply saying that all such spending should be done voluntarily.

Often, moral positions aren't based in reality; they're based on ideals.

Just because all current countries do thing one way does not mean that it's the best way; there isn't really a large variety of government/economic systems in use. Yes, there's variability, but essentially all of them are based in capitalism, and most governmental systems are either some form of western "liberal democracy" or monarchy. I personally find it tragic that there's no place left in the world to experiment with different ways of organizing governments; I always fear monoculture.

And even if you do move to other countries, sometimes, there's just no fit. This is a question I've given a lot of though to lately, and there's really no place that I could live where I'd consider the government to be truly moral. I'd simply be trading one kind of unhappiness for another, and while it might get _better_, it won't reach maximum.

> Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.

Even those who advocate such a thing consider it to be drastic, yes. Life wouldn't continue in the same way, but they have other solutions to those problems.

"but they have other solutions to those problems"

No, they don't. They have some hand-wavey wish-aways. Who runs the government if it doesn't have any money? Volunteers?

There is in fact a model for this, and it's called anarchy. Again, see Somalia.

Actually, anarchists don't generally see Somalia as an example of anarchy. It's generally accepted that for an anarchist... state to form, significant social change is necessary before any sort of governmental chance. You cannot just take the training wheels off, or you'll fall.

I suspect your opinion of anarchy is that of 13 year olds and punk bands, and I can't really blame you. There's a large amount of poor press involved. It's actually very thoroughly thought out, even if you disagree with their premises. If you'd care to learn more, there is a FAQ: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Note, this is from a collectivist perspective, who say that anarcho-captialists are not anarchists. I'm not sure of a great resource on anarcho-captialism, but it's basically just a more extreme version of libertarianism/minarchism anyway.

Okay, enough off topic stuff. Just please try to consider the way you casually dismiss others' beliefs, it makes them less likely to listen to your arguments (which are good ones).

Your link just upgrades "13 year olds and punk bands" to "20 year olds, phish, and alt-electronic bands". I'll stand by my casual dismissal, but if it makes you feel any better, I have the same level of casual disdain for people who claim communism just hasn't been implemented properly.

> In this case the change intended was to that of a higher or lower social class than the individual perceived he normally belonged to. The researchers then asked participants to indicate what percentage of a person’s income should be spent on charitable donations. They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity.

Perhaps this paragraph can plug first few of your perceived holes.

I don't disagree with you that most charities are a waste, but that is because they focus on what I call eat a fish assistance, such as providing food, vaccinations, etc which only temporarily improve the conditions for those they are trying to help.

On the other hand there are a few charities that do work to permanently improve the conditions for those they were supposed to help (teach fishing charities) these are most certainly not a waste of time or money to support (alot of Amnestys work would fall into this catagory).

Even a correlation between higher incomes and lower rates of altruism is interesting.

The whole rationality/lack thereof may actually be the case (at least from my personal experiences working in lower end jobs, where the people were either older and, frankly, not particularly smart, or younger, smarter, and temporary). Does the fact that it could be considered irrational invalidate any value of the altruism?

I was most interested in the last part, where they were seeing if people would help another person who was right in front of them. It shows something more about simple compassion, which I consider different from altruism. It also helps address your point about organized charitable activities: it was an opportunity to give what would have been perceived as help someone more in the here and now and less in the airy "well, this seems like a good percentage of my income to donate to charity...".

You could read the paper itself.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pd...

It's probably behind a paywall for you, though.

Also, poorer people are probably more likely to imagine themselves as recipients of charity rather than its providers, in which case the exact same self-interest motivation would move the answers of rich and poor in opposite directions.

I think that depends on your definition of poor, which is sadly left vague in this article. If by poor you mean paupers and the truly destitute that are homeless or avoiding that fate only by government handouts/charity then I suspect you are certainly right.

If by poor you mean what some refer to as the "working poor" or people only slighly above the working poor on the economic ladder, then my admittedly limited and admittedly anecdotal experience would contradict it. They tend to be hard working, generous with what little they have, and would be insulted by most suggestions of charity (though I have known a couple to take loans from friends to be paid back when they were able...) In short, my limited and anecdotal experience tends to support the concept in the article that the lower and working classes tend to be generous and helpful.

I agree with the in general 0% donation, unless of course I was actually involved directly as you mention in using the charitable funds. I just don't trust a random charity or even empathise with many of the charitable plights plastered in front of us with advertising (which is a questionable use of donations). I think I would in general have to have a personal involvement to consider giving.

"giving money to homeless people only gets them buying alcohol and cigarettes"

So what were you going to spend that .50 cents on?