4 ms·

Unfortunate that the article ignores how Christians are told to prefer giving anonymously because that sends a signal to God that you're not doing it to improve

by roca 6y ago

Unfortunate that the article ignores how Christians are told to prefer giving anonymously because that sends a signal to God that you're not doing it to improve your reputation with people (Matthew 6:3). Seems likely this influences enough people that it should be taken into account.

raxxorrax 6y ago
But it makes sense, doesn't it? Charity can be used for self promotion and anonymity is seen as a seal of sincerity. This is not restricted to Christians. It is no judgement on the act itself. Of course charity with self promotion is better than no charity in most cases.
- 0wis 6y ago
  Would be interesting to go in grey territory between signalling theory and psychology. If you give anonymously, you also send a signal to yourself that you are this kind of person. Christians or others, the image of self can be non negligible in decision making.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Very true, it doesn't mean you aren't doing something for yourself if you donate anonymously. Again, that is nothing restricted to Christians in my opinion, nor should it be, because I believe having a decent conscience is something one should try to hold on to.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    Go too far down that road, and you're applying it to all altruistic behaviors, claiming there's really no such thing as altruism because it's all in service to the ego, and concluding you might as well act as selfishly as possible. Personally I think it's ok to do altruistic things, and conclude from the evidence that you're an altruistic person. It is the most simple and straightforward explanation, and Occam's Razor is as sharp as ever. And given the way cognitive dissonance works, even a person who starts out as ego-driven will likely become more altruistic over time, if they do altruistic things with no concrete reward.
  - reitanqild 6y ago
    Agree with DennisP but will add some more: Since the Bible has already been mentioned, here is one key word to (mostly) put to rest this idea from a Christian perspective: "But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. " James 2.18. I think from this (and the context) we can conclude that the Bible is very much in favour of putting in the actual work. That said, a concept that I was introduced to when I was younger is that of "dead works", a concept that is harder to explain in a technical text only forum, but which sounds very much like what you describe based on the explanations I received: "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9.14. Shortly summarized as far as I remember and understand "dead works" was explained to me as things you will do just because you feel you "have to" to please your conscience, not because of a drive inside you to do what is good and right.
    - tk75x 6y ago
      I'd like to elaborate on the Hebrews 9:14 passage. To me it references another concept in the Bible where works alone do not guarantee salvation, but only the blood of Christ. The distinction Paul was making here to the Hebrews was that the old testament rituals weren't enough for salvation. James speaks more generally to all new testament Christians and explains that once you have living faith, the works will emerge naturally.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  Sure, but the one who donates is expecting something from God in return, right?
siruva07 6y ago
Similar values in Judaism. Maimonides, the Jewish Philosopher, formulated a list of eight levels of giving, correlating to the degree to which the giver is sensitive to the needs and feelings of the recipient. The second highest level is giving anonymously, where the recipient does not know the giver and vice versa. Receiving mutually anonymous tzedakah takes much of the sting out of being on the receiving end. The highest level is helping someone become self-sufficient. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish/Eight-Degrees-of-Giving.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish...
Siira 6y ago
This is mostly irrelevant. Pretty much every traditional value system values anonymous donations more, but few people actually do it in a completely anonymous way. I.e., the article isn’t about real anonymous donors, it’s about pseudo-anonymous donors which outnumber the real ones.
- chadash 6y ago
  Many people give money in a functionally anonymous way. Sure, it might be traceable, but if I go online and donate $100 to the red cross: 1) They might know my name, but they don't really know who I am 2) I don't really get any social status bump for doing this, unless I go around telling people that I made this donation (in which case, i'd agree, it's not really anonymous anymore)
DFHippie 6y ago
Yes, there are many more motivations to donate anonymously than this theory covers: - religious prescription - sincere support for a cause (a motivation other than one's own reputation) - a desire to prove one's morality in one's own eyes - desire not to embarrass the recipient - desire to increase the apparent support for the cause generally There are probably more.
ppod 6y ago
Couldn't the process in the article also explain why that's in the bible?
selfishgene 6y ago
What is most important to take into account here is that one of the authors of this paper is Martin Nowak. Martin Nowak is the same Harvard professor who invited a convicted child rapist by the name of Jeffrey Epstein onto the Harvard University campus and gave him an office and a flattering web page on his program's website for several years until victims of sexual abuse at Harvard forced him to take it down. This article was probably written to defend MIT president Rafael Reif's decision to mark Epstein's post-conviction donations to MIT as anonymous. While Epstein was still alive, he was paying Nowak to publish articles about how punishment usually serves "no noble purpose," presumably because Epstein was still scared that he could be indicted on sex-trafficking charges despite attorney Allen Dershowitz' heroic efforts to secure an immunity deal for Epstein that protected him from future prosecution ... as well as all of his co-conspirators (think all of the professors like Prof. Martin Nowak who visited Epstein on "Pedophile Isle" ... some of whom have now also been accused of child rape). In light of Epstein's "facilitation" of what are widely believed now to have been his own "anonymous" donations to Harvard (after a ban was imposed on accepting money directly from Epstein) through the mega-donations of billionaires Glenn Dubin and Les Wexner, this article is certainly worth reading again: https://www.chicagojewishnews.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-j https://www.chicagojewishnews.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-j...

by roca 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

But it makes sense, doesn't it? Charity can be used for self promotion and anonymity is seen as a seal of sincerity. This is not restricted to Christians. It is no judgement on the act itself. Of course charity with self promotion is better than no charity in most cases.

0wis 6y ago
Would be interesting to go in grey territory between signalling theory and psychology. If you give anonymously, you also send a signal to yourself that you are this kind of person. Christians or others, the image of self can be non negligible in decision making.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Very true, it doesn't mean you aren't doing something for yourself if you donate anonymously. Again, that is nothing restricted to Christians in my opinion, nor should it be, because I believe having a decent conscience is something one should try to hold on to.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Go too far down that road, and you're applying it to all altruistic behaviors, claiming there's really no such thing as altruism because it's all in service to the ego, and concluding you might as well act as selfishly as possible. Personally I think it's ok to do altruistic things, and conclude from the evidence that you're an altruistic person. It is the most simple and straightforward explanation, and Occam's Razor is as sharp as ever. And given the way cognitive dissonance works, even a person who starts out as ego-driven will likely become more altruistic over time, if they do altruistic things with no concrete reward.
- reitanqild 6y ago
  Agree with DennisP but will add some more: Since the Bible has already been mentioned, here is one key word to (mostly) put to rest this idea from a Christian perspective: "But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. " James 2.18. I think from this (and the context) we can conclude that the Bible is very much in favour of putting in the actual work. That said, a concept that I was introduced to when I was younger is that of "dead works", a concept that is harder to explain in a technical text only forum, but which sounds very much like what you describe based on the explanations I received: "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9.14. Shortly summarized as far as I remember and understand "dead works" was explained to me as things you will do just because you feel you "have to" to please your conscience, not because of a drive inside you to do what is good and right.
  - tk75x 6y ago
    I'd like to elaborate on the Hebrews 9:14 passage. To me it references another concept in the Bible where works alone do not guarantee salvation, but only the blood of Christ. The distinction Paul was making here to the Hebrews was that the old testament rituals weren't enough for salvation. James speaks more generally to all new testament Christians and explains that once you have living faith, the works will emerge naturally.
rbanffy 6y ago
Sure, but the one who donates is expecting something from God in return, right?

siruva07 6y ago

Similar values in Judaism. Maimonides, the Jewish Philosopher, formulated a list of eight levels of giving, correlating to the degree to which the giver is sensitive to the needs and feelings of the recipient. The second highest level is giving anonymously, where the recipient does not know the giver and vice versa. Receiving mutually anonymous tzedakah takes much of the sting out of being on the receiving end. The highest level is helping someone become self-sufficient. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish/Eight-Degrees-of-Giving.htm https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish...

Siira 6y ago

This is mostly irrelevant. Pretty much every traditional value system values anonymous donations more, but few people actually do it in a completely anonymous way. I.e., the article isn’t about real anonymous donors, it’s about pseudo-anonymous donors which outnumber the real ones.

chadash 6y ago
Many people give money in a functionally anonymous way. Sure, it might be traceable, but if I go online and donate $100 to the red cross: 1) They might know my name, but they don't really know who I am 2) I don't really get any social status bump for doing this, unless I go around telling people that I made this donation (in which case, i'd agree, it's not really anonymous anymore)

DFHippie 6y ago

Yes, there are many more motivations to donate anonymously than this theory covers: - religious prescription - sincere support for a cause (a motivation other than one's own reputation) - a desire to prove one's morality in one's own eyes - desire not to embarrass the recipient - desire to increase the apparent support for the cause generally There are probably more.

ppod 6y ago

Couldn't the process in the article also explain why that's in the bible?

selfishgene 6y ago

What is most important to take into account here is that one of the authors of this paper is Martin Nowak. Martin Nowak is the same Harvard professor who invited a convicted child rapist by the name of Jeffrey Epstein onto the Harvard University campus and gave him an office and a flattering web page on his program's website for several years until victims of sexual abuse at Harvard forced him to take it down. This article was probably written to defend MIT president Rafael Reif's decision to mark Epstein's post-conviction donations to MIT as anonymous. While Epstein was still alive, he was paying Nowak to publish articles about how punishment usually serves "no noble purpose," presumably because Epstein was still scared that he could be indicted on sex-trafficking charges despite attorney Allen Dershowitz' heroic efforts to secure an immunity deal for Epstein that protected him from future prosecution ... as well as all of his co-conspirators (think all of the professors like Prof. Martin Nowak who visited Epstein on "Pedophile Isle" ... some of whom have now also been accused of child rape). In light of Epstein's "facilitation" of what are widely believed now to have been his own "anonymous" donations to Harvard (after a ban was imposed on accepting money directly from Epstein) through the mega-donations of billionaires Glenn Dubin and Les Wexner, this article is certainly worth reading again: https://www.chicagojewishnews.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-j https://www.chicagojewishnews.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epsteins-j...