I also think that they're obviously tracking various biases. A drowning child is much more salient than a far away child with malaria. One reason we think that morality can't be so demanding that people would be required to spend all their time saving children is that would be super inconvenient--we're biased by self-interest. Another re…
I also think that they're obviously tracking various biases. A drowning child is much more salient than a far away child with malaria. One reason we think that morality can't be so demanding that people would be required to spend all their time saving children is that would be super inconvenient--we're biased by self-interest. Another reason is scope neglect--just as most people would spend similar amounts to save 2000, 20,000, and 200,000 birds (hilariously they'd spend more to save 20,000 than 200,000) they also don't care much more about saving a dozen children than just one. The third nameless faceless child is not salient--and is thus ignored.
Comments on the ACX post, and personal experience with nationalist/localist types, suggest that cheater detection modules are firing off: if someone in need isn't near me to be regularly observed, then they're probably delinquent, looking for me to bail them out, and will respond to this incentive by creating more delinquency. I wonder how strongly this attitude toward distant aid correlates with measures of cheater detection in close personal relationships, whether romantic, familial, or employment on either side.
I also think that they're obviously tracking various biases. A drowning child is much more salient than a far away child with malaria. One reason we think that morality can't be so demanding that people would be required to spend all their time saving children is that would be super inconvenient--we're biased by self-interest. Another reason is scope neglect--just as most people would spend similar amounts to save 2000, 20,000, and 200,000 birds (hilariously they'd spend more to save 20,000 than 200,000) they also don't care much more about saving a dozen children than just one. The third nameless faceless child is not salient--and is thus ignored.
Comments on the ACX post, and personal experience with nationalist/localist types, suggest that cheater detection modules are firing off: if someone in need isn't near me to be regularly observed, then they're probably delinquent, looking for me to bail them out, and will respond to this incentive by creating more delinquency. I wonder how strongly this attitude toward distant aid correlates with measures of cheater detection in close personal relationships, whether romantic, familial, or employment on either side.