3 ms·
I don’t think she particularly cares about measuring the effectiveness of her altruism. > “What do we think they might do with more cash on hand than they expe
by ENOTTY 5y ago
I don’t think she particularly cares about measuring the effectiveness of her altruism.
> “What do we think they might do with more cash on hand than they expected?” Scott asked in her June blog post. “Hire a few extra team members they know they can pay for the next five years. Buy chairs for them. Stop having to work every weekend. Get some sleep.”
My wild ass guess is that she’s hoping her firehose of money will do more good in a shorter amount of time versus spending a lot of time fine tuning the giving.
I think a lot of billionaire philanthropists see their giving as almost like a kind of investment, and some of them want to see a return on that investment that is above the average return from the average non-billionaire giver. That in turn causes the recipient to spend at least some time thinking about how to make that billionaire feel like they got a good return.
It sounds like McKenzie-Scott’s idea of giving is more hands off, identifying teams that had a history of doing good work, and giving them both resources and mental space to execute.
Something for effective altruists to consider.
- KittenInABox 5y ago> It sounds like McKenzie-Scott’s idea of giving is more hands off, identifying teams that had a history of doing good work, and giving them both resources and mental space to execute. I think there's something to be said for this. It's clear none of those people were in it for the money, the prestige, and are passionate enough about that they would risk their health for an unknown gain (its often very hard to measure whether or not your one night of sleeping less actually made the world better). Receiving a one-time donation of someone of MacKenzie's stature not only gives them breathing room but also puts them on the map as a charity a billionaire "invested" into.