December 2, 2024 • 51 mins
It's the season of giving: colorful paper and shiny bows, sure, and charitable giving, too. In this special episode, Jacob Goldstein, the host of What's Your Problem, gets smart about donating.
Did you know that spending money on others makes you happier than spending money on yourself? Or that altruistic nerds have discovered four of the most impactful charities in the world (per dollar spent)? Have you ever wondered how poker players think about giving?
Dr. Laurie Santos from The Happiness Lab, Elie Hassenfeld of GiveWell, and Nate Silver and Maria Konnikova from Risky Business talk about how to maximize your giving – and why you’ll be happy you did.
Link to donate: https://givingmultiplier.org/happinesslab
Listen to The Happiness Lab with Dr. Laurie Santos
Listen to Risky Business
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Pushkin.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I'm Jacob Goldstein. I host a Pushkin podcast called What's
Your Problem? And I am here randomly talking to you
right now because today is the day before Giving Tuesday.
Giving Tuesday, as you may already know, is the Tuesday
after Thanksgiving, and it's supposed to be the day we
give money to charity. And I'm gonna be honest with you.
(00:43):
In my middle aged, somewhat calcified heart, I cringe a
little bit every time I hear the phrase giving Tuesday.
I think Giving Tuesday is not a real thing. It's
not a real day. It's just something somebody made up
a few years ago. But that cynicism is not helping anybody.
In fact, as it turns out, it isn't even helping me.
(01:05):
I know this to be true because over the past
decade or so, research has made two things really clear. One,
giving money away makes us feel better than we think
it will make us feel. In other words, we underestimate
the benefit to ourselves of giving money to others. That's
thing one think. Two is this, there are charities that
(01:28):
are proven, proven by really robust evidence, to do a
tremendous amount of good with the money we give them,
So Today, I and my colleagues at Pushkin are leaning
into Giving Tuesday. We are putting out this special Giving
Tuesday show to get into this evidence to really understand
why giving money makes us happy, why we don't do
(01:49):
it more, and who we should give money to. To
start out on the show, I'm going to talk with
Lori Santos. Laurie's a Yale psychologist who hosts a Pushkin
show called The Happiness Lab, and Laura and I are
going to talk about the evidence that shows that giving
makes us happy and then the obvious puzzle that follows
from that evidence. If giving makes us so happy, why
(02:11):
don't we give more? Later on the show, I'll talk
with Ellie Hasenfeld. Ellie is the co founder and CEO
of GiveWell, and he has spent nearly two decades scouring
the world studying the research to try to figure out
which charities do the most good with every dollar. And
then finally I'll talk with Maria Konikova and Nate Silver.
(02:33):
Maria and Nate are a pair of writers who host
a Pushkin podcast called Risky Business, but they're also both
professional poker players. They are people whose livelihoods depend on
making optimal bets. So I'll be talking to them about
how they bring that thinking to their charitable giving. Lorie Santos,
(02:57):
tell me why I am not giving enough money to charity.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Well, it's probably because your mind is leading you astray, right,
I mean, you're like a smart person, right. You probably
think through what would be the pros and cons of
giving a charity. You probably do some simulations in your
head about how it would feel for you, and you
know how the recipients of that money would feel. And
there's just tons of psychological evidence showing that when we
do those simulations, we get them really really wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Huh. We don't know what makes us happy with giving money,
as with everything.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
As with everything. Yeah, I mean, in some ways, the
giving money part shouldn't be surprising.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
I have a whole podcast about how we get happiness
wrong all the time. But this one's really insidious because
it means that we're like leaving opportunities not just to
make ourselves happier kind of on the table, but we're
also leaving opportunities to just do good in the world
and do good in society on the table too. So
in some ways, it's like even sadder Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Like people talk about win win, This is like lose lose.
It's right, I feel worse and everybody feels worse.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And it's another case where we could be building the pie.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
You know, say I have you know, ten bucks sitting
around in my pocket, Right, it could spend it in
a way that makes me happy, or I could donate
it to a good cause. Right, I probably feel better.
The research would show spending at ten dollars on a
good charity, then I would feel kind of blowing it
on myself. But now the money is going to increase
happiness in other people, right, presumably somebody who really needed
(04:18):
that money. And so we're losing these opportunities to grow
the pie. And we really just need to understand this
bias better so that we can be happier.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So you learn it to the research that shows that
giving money away makes us happier. Tell me more about that, Like,
what is the academic work that's been done on this subject.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Yeah, well there's tons of studies now, you know. One
of my favorite is a really straightforward one. It comes
out of the lab of Elizabeth Dunn and her colleagues
at the University of British Columbia, and their method is
really straightforward. They walk up to some person on the
street and they say, hey, do you want to be
in a psych study? I think the person kind of
begrudging all he's like, okay, fine, But then it starts
out it's an awesome psych study because Liz and her
(04:56):
colleagues just hand you twenty bucks and she're like cool.
The key, though, is that she tells you how to
spend that money. She either says, hey, by the end
of the day, do something nice for yourself with this money.
Treat yourself, you know, it's something you wouldn't have expected.
Or by the end of the day, do something nice
with this money for somebody else. Right, you could donate
it to charity, you could buy your friend a Lotte, Right,
it doesn't matter, but it has to be for somebody else.
(05:18):
And then the key is that she calls participants later
that day and even in some cases later in the week,
and what she finds is that people tend to feel
happier when they donate the money to somebody else or
do something nice for somebody else with the money, more
so than they feel when they spent the equivalent amount
of money on themselves, and the study I love because
it's just so straightforward. It's just suggests that what we
(05:41):
predict will happen, right, And Liz has actually done these
studies where she asks a different group of participants, Hey,
imagine you were in the study where I walked up
to you on the street and gave you twenty bucks?
Would you be happier spending that on yourself or somebody else?
And like robustly people say, oh, I'd be happier spending
on myself, right, because I get something out of the deal.
But what she finds is that we're just our prediction
is just totally wrong. When we spend on others, we're happier.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So I feel like there's a subtlety there in the
spending on others group. Right. It is in some ways
more intuitive to me that like, whatever, buying lunch for
my friend would make me happy because my friend would
be so happy and we'd be happy together, and the
thing would be happening in this very you know, social,
(06:24):
real physical way, Like I get that one. It seems
less obvious to me that like giving twenty bucks to
a charity helping people in sub Saharan Africa would make
me happy, even though clearly intellectually, analytically, I know that
the twenty bucks going to sub Saharan Africa is going
to do more to increase abstract human happiness than buying
(06:46):
lunch for my friend who could have bought lunch for herself. So, like,
how does that piece of it work? How do we
think about that piece of it?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
You are onto an important point, which is that there
are better and worse ways to give to charity, right
in terms of like boosting our own happiness and sort
of feeling the impact from that, we are we are
a lot happier if we can see the impact of
our work, right, But even when we don't see the
impact of our work, the act of donating winds up
making us feel better than we think. Again, I share
(07:14):
the intuition that you have, Jacob, Right, Like, I know
these studies. I can kind of quote the stats and
I still don't have the intuition that it works. But
the results really just suggest that we feel better than
we assume we will.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Why do you think we get it wrong? I mean,
I know we get everything wrong, But why do you
think we get this wrong? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean we get everything wrong? Right, Our minds I
wish we could just like update like mind two point
zero would be so much better. I think there's some
there's some reasons that we get this one wrong. One
is sort of when we're doing an active kindness, what
we focus on as opposed to what the recipient will
focus on. Right, I'm sort of focused on whether or
not my gift is kind of in some sense competent,
(07:51):
Like am I doing the right thing? Am I picking
the right charity? Maybe in more local acts of kindness?
Am I doing it the right way? Right?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah? I don't want to be awkward. I don't want
to be rude or make this person feel some sense
of obligation or reciprocity that might not work for them.
Overthinking it, you're saying we're over things.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
But in terms of the overthinking, that's not what's happening.
On the other side. You think of the recipient of
a compliment, right, If you know, if someone walks up
to you in the streets like, hey, you know love
those glasses? They really see you, Jacob, like nicely done.
You're not thinking you you mean it and I like it,
But you're not thinking of like did they say it right?
Did they use the right adjective, was it cool glasses
(08:29):
or stylish? You're just like, oh my gosh, I'm surprised,
and I have this incredible warm feeling. And so this
is part of the disconnect, is that when we're making
the decision to do something nice, we're overthinking, we're caught
up and if we're doing it right and so on.
But the recipients they don't feel any of that. They're
just like, oh my gosh, I feel amazing. And so
we kind of mispredict what they're paying attention to when
(08:51):
they react, and that means their reactions are often a
lot more positive than we expect. And then we're like, oh,
I guess, I guess it was nice to do that
kind thing for somebody.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
It's the broader lesson of like everybody's just thinking about
themselves all the time. We're thinking about ourselves as givers
and am I the optimal giver? Am I giving in
the optimal way? But the recipients aren't thinking about you.
They're just thinking about.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Them Yeah, And we get so caught up in the
awkwardness of it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
You know, how many compliments have you not given just
because you're like, oh, I don't want to do it
wrong or seem weird and some of Nick Eppley's a
professor at the University of Chicago's data. He finds that
about a third of the compliments we think in our heads,
we don't actually tell the people around us, right, which
when you think compliments usually are received really well and
make people's day, it's like a lot of positivity that's
(09:36):
just like stuck inside people's heads that we're not giving out.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Friction seems like another interesting piece, right, there's like you're
in your own head too much. And the other core
piece is like, ah, I don't know. I'm just some
guy in the world. How do I figure out who
to give to? And like, I feel like that one
is underrated in the world in general. Right, Like we
just we're like water, We just flow to the easiest route.
I mean, how do you see that playing out in
(10:00):
charity more generally, in giving more generally?
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah, I mean I think that friction is a huge thing, right.
I Mean a good friend of mine just had a
baby with his wife, and my instagraction was like, oh
my gosh, I should do something nice for them. Maybe
I'll get them some food or some onesies or something.
But I was like, do I just show up at
their house? Like do they have any dietary restrictions that
I'm forgetting about?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Is this we?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Like all again, all this overthinking in my head. But
another good friend of ours was like, I'm setting up
a meal train. Here's the day you click on this, lin,
It's super easy, right, what you're going to you know,
give him if it's a lasagn or whatever, here's how
you drop it off. She just made it really easy
for me to do the nice thing that I was
thinking about doing. Anyway, I needed somebody to make that
(10:42):
friction go away for me to help. And so I
think there's so many cases of this in terms of
what we could do to do nice things for others,
whether that's with a charitable donation or even just like
you know, asking a friend if they need some support,
checking in on the people we care about, sharing compliments
and so on. The friction kind of gets in the way.
And I think this is the idea, is that we
(11:03):
can overcome the friction by kind of reducing how much
work it is for us to do the nice thing. Right,
next thing is just texting a friend or you're already there,
you know, like you know in the subway and you
compliment somebody who's walking by. Right, these are the kinds
of things that we can do quickly, and if we
do them enough, then there's a second way that we
can reduce friction, which is that it just kind of
(11:23):
becomes a habit. Right, if we just get in the
habit of doing this over and over again, doing more
and more nice things, then all of a sudden, it
just becomes easier. Because so much that we know about
human psychology, even though we're kind of you know, in
the crappy beta version, shows that when we do something
over and over again, it just becomes easier to do
that same thing. And so one of the giving Tuesday
(11:43):
practices that I talk about in my show that Happiness
Lab is just hey, practice doing nice things, and it
will make it easier. You'll kind of experience less friction
over time, just because, like it's just the thing you
do when you see somebody you know at work, who
you know is wearing something nice or they do something
great in a team meeting. You'll just get good at
expressing compliments, expressing gratitude. It'll just become second nature.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Told you, So, you have this project through your show
the happiness lab of giving money away, like built on
this premise that we're talking about that not only would
recipients be better if people gave more, but the givers
themselves would be better if people gave more. You have
this project that you do every year for Giving Tuesday,
(12:26):
which is coming up. Tell me about that project. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
So the site that we've worked with is this group
called giving multiplier dot org, and their goal is to
fight a different kind of thing that can go wrong
when we think about donating to charities, which is that
many of us really do want to be kind of
competent about it. We want our money to go to
really good causes in the world, but we also kind
of fall prey to the causes that feel really close
(12:50):
to my heart, right you know, like I might want
to give to my local food bank, which is great,
you know, it's good to do that, but that ten
bucks I give to my local food bank, it might
not have as much impact as you know, giving to
somebody maybe an extreme poverty right in like Sub Saharan Africa.
You know, I haven't really analyzed as my local food
bank doing the best with the money and so on,
(13:10):
and so Giving Multiplier dot org has this has this
really nice combination of they say, Okay, you really feel
compelled to give to your food bank, but what if
you gave just part of that ten bucks to one
of these so called super effective charities. Right they've done
the research. They're like the dollar that you give from
that ten bucks to the super effective charity is going
to go even further. And so they kind of allow
(13:31):
you to make this distinction between your your heart and
what you kind of really feel locally, the kind of
thing that make you feel good because you can see
the impact in your community versus what's doing the best
work out there and giving. Multiplier dot Org this year
has picked a really great super effective charity which is
called Give Directly. This is this group that just gives
(13:51):
these unconditional cash transfers, like no strings attached, like cast
bonus to people living in extreme poverty.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
And there's a Happiness Lab. You are l right, shout
it out, Shout it from the rooftops. What is it?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
It's giving Multiplier dot org slash Happiness Lab super easy.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Go right now. Phones are open, operators are standing by,
you know.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And one of the things we've seen is that a
lot of our listeners will donate five bucks, three bucks
in some cases, but those kinds of donations really add up,
and especially if part of your donation is going to
one of these super effective charities, like that dollar is
going a really long way.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Yeah, I'll say, And I know, like analyzing super effective
charities ends up being about like randomized controlled trials, which
is great, like real evidence. But I will say that
I actually for a story I did ten years ago
or so, I went to Kenya to a village where
Give Directly was giving money, and I saw how profound
(14:50):
the impact is. I mean, it's people get one thousand
dollars at least at that time, no strings attached, and
like I talk to a guy who bought a motorcycle
so that he could start a motorcycle taxi business. Right,
So it's not just like they buy food and then
the money runs out. It's people have no capital, they
have no money, and so getting a th thousand dollars
allows them to make these investments that can change their
(15:12):
lives forever. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
We saw that last year where we really focused on
Give Directly in particular and one community specifically. So we
worked with this community, Kebobo in Rwanda, which is a
tiny village just on the outside of Kigali, the capital.
But they just like all, most of the people in
the community live off less than a dollar a day,
and just like you're saying, they just lack so many
of the basic conveniences that we take for granted. Right,
(15:36):
they have to hike two hours to get access to water,
and then the water comes back and it's like, are
you going to drink some water? A you're going to
give your kid a shower? Right, There's no access to
schools and these kinds of things. And last year, Happiness
Lab listeners were able to generate over one hundred thousand
dollars for this community in particular, And so, just like
you're saying, give directly, was able to give each person
in the community one thousand dollars unconditional cash transfer, and
(15:59):
the money went to things like motorbikes like you mentioned,
fixing roofs, buying mattresses. Right, most of the people in
Kebobo were sleeping on the floor. They just didn't have
access to a mattress. But some people did these really
creative things that one of the things I didn't expect
is that one of the couples that got the cash transfer,
bought a pub, which you might think like, oh, they
got a pub.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
A pub it like a bar, like a I love that,
But the bar.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Like wound up employing people in the community. It became
this community hub where people could get together with each
other at night, and it's generated more income for them.
So now they're turning kind of the side of their
pub that they put together into a little mini grocery store,
which is one of the first spots that people can
buy food in town, so that they don't have to
leave town. And so it's like, if you leave it
up to people's ingenuity, they kind of come up with
(16:45):
these interesting things.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I mean there's a really simple idea. Like the
reason I wanted to do that story all those years
ago is like people know what they need, right, Like
they know if they need food or a motorcycle or
a roof, they just don't have the money, yes, right,
So like if you give them the money, they can
buy what they need. That's the great thing about money.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, and this is something we forget with gifts in general.
I think this comes up in charity, but there's also
a work you know, giving Tuesdays sort of the prelude
to other holidays and gift giving moments coming up, and
it's just something we get wrong all the time. Like
we want to be able to come up with the
creative gift for somebody, but one of the best ways
to figure out the best gift is to just ask
people what do you want? And if you buy someone
(17:28):
that thing, they're going to be happy because that was
what they wanted.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Yeah, it goes back to the like we're thinking about
ourselves right, even when we're giving gifts this notionally you know,
other focused thing, we're actually like, oh am I a
good gift giver? Am I a good It's just ego.
It's just we're just screwing ourselves with our ego as always. Yeah,
it was great to talk with you, Laurie. It was
(17:52):
It was truly a delightful conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
This is super Thanks for sharing the love on Giving Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Laurie Santos is a professor of psychology at Yale and
the host of the Happiness Lab. They have a whole
episode on the psychology of generosity coming out this week.
We'll be back in a minute with my conversation with
Ellie Hassenfeld. Who spent nearly two decades scouring the planet
to find the most effective ways to spend money on
other people. Okay, so Laurie Santos explained convincingly that giving
(18:39):
away money makes us feel good. So now the question
is who do we give the money to? That is
basically the question that Ellie Hassenfeld asked himself almost twenty
years ago. It's a question that led him to co
found give Well, where he's now the CEO, and it's
a question that, in some really interesting ways, as you
will hear, has started to change the way charities themselves
(19:02):
think about what they do. To start, I asked Ellie
how he came to found GiveWell in the first place.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Back in two thousand and six, I was a couple
of years out of college working at a hedge fund,
and a friend, Holding Karnowski, and I wanted to give
to charity. And at the time, we were trying to
give a few thousand bucks away and we wanted to
find charitable organizations that were getting a lot of bang
for their buck. And when we went looking online for information,
(19:33):
we just couldn't find great information about what charities do
and how well it works. We heard a lot about
the overhead ratio, how much did they spend on administration
versus programs, but nothing that said this is what they're
doing and this is how many people they'll help with
their programs. We spent months trying to answer this question.
(19:54):
The two of us got a little bit obsessed with it,
and eventually, after about a year of working on this
project left our jobs to start give Well as a
full time project. And the idea was to create the
resource that we had been looking for as donors well.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
And there is this interesting sort of broader idea in
the charity world, right in the philanthropic world, which is
what are they measuring? You Know, you can have a
charity that builds schools, and they might tell you how
many schools they build, but presumably you're not actually giving
money to build the school, right, You're giving money so
(20:29):
that children get a better education. And so I'm curious,
I mean, as you started to look deeper at the
time as you founded give Well, like what was just
the basic landscape of measurement within the charity world, Like.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
It's just really hard to get information about the outcomes
that we cared about that I think donors ultimately do
care about and those outcomes would be things like, do
you save children's lives if you are providing funds for
health programs? If you're trying to reduce poverty, do you
increase people's incomes so that they can buy more of
(21:06):
the kinds of things that they want? And I would
say that buy and large. This information was not available
when we were calling up organizations and asking them for information.
They were often shocked that anyone would be even asking
a question like this, because it was just in two
thousand and six, two thousand and seven. It was completely
(21:27):
unusual that someone would be wondering about like what what
is the program actually accomplishing? What is the impact that
it's happening on the world?
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Huh? I mean, is it almost a rude question? Was
it almost like? Look, we're spending our lives helping these people,
We're giving them cows, we're building clinics, Like who are you?
What are you asking about? Why? Where do you come
off asking these questions?
Speaker 4 (21:50):
I think it's definitely an odd question to ask something
that I say a lot internally. I could well now
is that you know, we're the people who react skeptically
to organizations saying we're just trying to help people around
the world, and we say, well, how do you know
and can you prove it? And you know, that's not
a socially normal thing to do, but I think it's
(22:11):
necessary because gosh, it's so hard to have an impact
on people around the world, and asking those questions helps
get better information so we can shure that funding goes
to the best place.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
So you do have this short list of pop charities
that seems kind of like the center of what you
do in some way. Right, you've looked at all of
these charities in the world, then you've landed on this
very small number. Briefly, what are they?
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Yeah, so you know, these top charities account for about
two thirds of the funds we direct. There are four
of them. One is the Against Malaria Foundation, which delivers
malaria nets in Africa. The second one is called Malaria Consortium,
and we support their Seasonal Malaria Chemo Prevention program. That's
a preventative malaria program giving medicine to young children. The
(22:57):
third one, and these are in no particular order, but
the third one is Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation program.
This is a program that gives a small amount of
vitamin A children under the age of five, and it
is shown in numerous studies to reduce child mortality. And
then finally, New Incentives, which is the organization that provides
(23:19):
conditional cash trans or small cash transfers to encourage immunization.
You know, the top charities reflect you know, roughly two
thirds of the funds that we direct, and we see
them as the you know, really that tried and true.
Like if you're a donor and you want to have
a lot of impact and you want to have confidence
in that impact. These are organizations that we have followed
(23:39):
for many years and we have a lot of confidence
in because they are there's a lot of evidence that
supports their impact.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
So how do you get from sort of generally being
interested in charity and in you know, research driven outcomes
to specifically focusing on saving the lives of children in
the developing world. Yeah, I mean so, at.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Its core, GiveWell is about finding outstanding programs that we
can support with the aim of having the most impact
with the funds that we direct. And when we started,
we didn't know where we were going to find those programs,
So we were looking at health programs focused on low
(24:24):
income countries, but also social programs focused on New York
City where we lived at the time, so job training programs,
education programs, et cetera. And after our first year of
work where we were focused on both US social programs
and also global programs, we looked at the data and
just saw how big the difference was in what a
(24:46):
dollar could accomplish overseas versus at home. And just to
make it concrete, you know, we estimate roughly, but I
think it's the right ballpark that five thousand or so
dollars will avert the death of a young child in
a low income country. That's about what it costs to
put a child through school for a couple of years
(25:09):
in a New York City charter school. And so that
differential really showed us that the opportunities to use money
to have a big impactor over on the world where
we're stronger overseas, and it drove us. It drove us
to focus our efforts there. We're finding the groups that are,
(25:30):
I think, like importantly like not sure that their own
programs are working, and so want to ensure that they're
gathering the data so that they know where the programs
are effective, where they're struggling so that they can make
changes to run those programs more effectively.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Yeah, I mean, so that's an interesting idea, right, Like
that idea of the groups themselves being unsure, it requires
a sense of what is what is the real end point? Right?
I think quite often and reasonably, like things are clearly
helpful if you whatever, give someone a cow and you
(26:08):
know training on how to take care of that cow, like,
pretty clearly that person is going to be better off
than if you hadn't done it, And so it might
not be obvious to say, oh, we need to measure, well,
how much does it cost to give them the cow?
How much better off are they? Are there things we
could change that would be even more helpful, Like most
people clearly don't do that, right, Most people in their
(26:29):
jobs in many domains are not constantly measuring and trying
to optimize.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Yeah, I mean, I just think the stakes are so
high that it's just absolutely critical that there is a
recognition that failure can happen and we have to do
the best we can. Billions of dollars go to health
aid every year, and the stakes are quite literally life
and death. And so therefore the difference between some of
(26:54):
the best programs that can very roughly say, avert the
death of a young child for approximately five to ten
thousand dollars, and then other programs which could have very
limited impact I think in the worst case, even cause harm.
Measurement in that feedback loop to say this, we want
to see whether it's working, we want to see the
(27:17):
extent to which it's working, and we want to learn
from what we've done so that we can do better.
That's true for the organizations we work with. That's true
for us as an organization. You know, we're trying to
follow the same project of learning from our own track
record in history to make better decisions in the future
and hopefully help people even more. The groups that we
work with most, and I think the kinds of people
(27:38):
who are most drawn to what we're doing, whether it's
donors or practitioners, are people who's I think their interest,
you know, the idea that they have that we have
is to try to find the way to use charitable
dollars to accomplish as much good as possible. And if
that idea is preventing HIV and young children, then great.
(28:00):
And if we can do better, if we can distribute
oral rehydration solution to prevent deaths from diarrhea, or if
we can encourage a testing and treatment to prevent cases
of tuberculosis and children. What I ultimately care about. The
thing that's important to me is just helping children, and
I'm not drawn to the specific cause or disease as
(28:22):
much as the outcome, which is trying to enable more
people to live long, healthy lives.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I feel like, you know, traditionally philanthropy was largely about
making donors feel good, and maybe it still is to
some degree, the nature of human nature being what it is.
But it seems like the growth of give well and
of sort of research driven philanthropy more generally has coincided
(28:51):
with the long boom of Silicon Valley, right, And it
strikes me that the kind of people who get rich
in tech are more numerically driven, are more metrics oriented
perhaps than earlier generations of rich people well, and that
that might be sort of part of what is going on,
(29:12):
part of the wind at your back, part of the
rise of research driven philanthropy. You buy that.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
I think there's a kind of person in tech and
also in parts of finance. Those are the two sectors
from which we draw most of our donors who have
I think the perspective that they take on the world
as one we know that there's a lot we can
be wrong about. We know there can be big differences
(29:39):
in the investments we make or the decisions we make.
As a company leader, we also know that we can
be wrong and we want to learn about how to
do it better. And I do think we see that
coming out of those industries and it's a big part
of what has helped us grow to the size that
we are today.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
So you were mentioning that when you first started out
and you were calling up charities and saying, what evidence
do you have that you're actually helping people basically, and
they would say, how dare you? Who are you? Why
are you asking me this? I'm spending my life helping people.
What do they say now when you call them up?
Has that changed?
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Very practically? It's changed for us because when I was
calling people up almost twenty years ago, I was offering
them a thousand bucks and you know, now we have
a lot of funding to give, and so that does
make them more responsive.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Oh, that's interesting. So there's a sort of pull. So basically,
because you're directing hundreds of millions of dollars a year,
organizations have an incentive to be more research based.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Yeah, I mean very fundamentally. You know, there's a there's
a problem so to speak, in the charitable market where
the person deciding to open their wallet is not the
person who's ultimately receiving the service. So there's a disconnect
between the recipient and the giver. Where in the consumer
market that we're used to, you know, I purchase my
(31:02):
laptop and then I also use it and see how
good it is.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, and so I think, and if it sucks you,
you that company goes out of years.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Out of desness. But that's work security if you're great
at fundraising from donors but terrible at delivering a program
no one might ever know. And so very I think
just concretely give well has helped support the literal in
a very small way, the creation of an incentive to
operate in a way that is focused on demonstrating impact,
(31:30):
because the dollars that we have to give, the dollars
that we have to influence, are going after that evidence
of strong impact. And I should say, of course, like
we are just part of a larger and I think
ever growing ecosystem. You see this in the academics who
launched the randomized control trial movement in economics, organizations like
(31:53):
Evidence Action, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Give Directly. I
mean this, It's a large and growing group of institutions,
even beyond the scope of just give Well, that are
operating in a way that is explicitly aiming to deliver
great results and demonstrate that those results are coming to fruition.
And I think that is just a massive change from
(32:14):
where we were twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
So you mentioned give directly, and as it happens, the
there's a sort of charitable giving project out of one
of the shows at Pushkin that gives money to give
directly basically. And I'm curious about give well sort of
ongoing evaluation of give directly, Like what do you think
what do you think of give directly as work in
a quantitative professional way? Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Like, extremely, extremely highly of them. I've personally been a
gift directly donor for many years, you know, continued to
give to them last year and will this year because
I really love what they do. I think it's just
so critical to say, you know, with some of our giving,
let's make sure that we're just supporting people to purchase,
you know, what they most.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Want still to come. On the show, Ellie talks about
some of the most surprising things he's seen in his
nearly two decades.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
In the charity world.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
What do you make of the fact that five thousand
dollars can save a child's life?
Speaker 4 (33:27):
I think it is just an illustration of on some
level how unjust our world is, you know, potentially how
I think all of us, myself included, don't perhaps don't
really take it seriously as we should, the kind of
impact that we can have overseas. But fundamentally, you know,
I think it shows that something is very broken in
(33:50):
our system for allocating resources globally, because it's very hard
to accept that it's possible to save someone's life for
five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Yeah, I mean with all the money, even with all
the money that people give way, Like why don't people
give enough money to buy bed nets for kids so
they don't get malaria? Right? Like there's some amount of money.
The more money people give, the less valuable each marginal
net would be, right, Like, why haven't people given enough
(34:24):
money to these programs to sort of give away all
the bed nets that you need to give away, and
give away all the malaria medicine that you'd need to
give away to stop kids from dying of malaria, at
least in these high intensity malaria areas where it's obvious
that kids are going to die of malaria every year.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
I think, first of all, it's just worth noting how
much progress we have made globally in the last twenty
five years. The US government has given huge amounts to
a program called pepfar focused on HIV, the President's Malaria
Initiative focused on malaria, and has been instrumental in the
creation of the Global Fund, which focuses on HTB and malaria,
(35:05):
and GAVI, which focuses on immanizations. So since the year
two thousand on a, funding going to global health problems
has gone up a huge amount. It has plateaued more recently,
but it's gone up a huge amount, and we see
a massive reduction in child mortality. So we're doing a
lot better today than we were in the recent past.
(35:25):
And then I guess like, fundamentally, I don't know why
people don't give more or even give more to these charities, right,
It's it's more a question of direction. It's not even
why don't people give more money. It's like, if it's
really that easy to save a kid's life, like we
want that number to go up, right, like the cheaper
(35:48):
it is to save a kid's life.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
I mean, it's kind of you cuts both ways. Right
on the one end, it's like, well, great, we know
a thing that is helpful. But on the other hand, like, well,
let's buy all the bed bets. So it's not so easy,
do you know what I'm saying? Uh?
Speaker 4 (36:01):
Completely, And yeah, I think that you know, give Well
raises about three hundred million dollars a year. A give
Well that was raising a billion dollars a year would
the marginal dollars would be much less less cost effective
because we would have gone much further.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Weirdly, you want to get to a place where it's
more expensive to save a child's life, Like the more
expensive it is, the less inequality there is in the world,
the more kids' lives we're saving.
Speaker 4 (36:26):
Exactly exactly, you know. And then I think I Give
Well itself is an institution that has raised much more
money over the last fifteen years than was raised previously
and is going and I think it reflects more people giving.
Why aren't people giving more to these programs? I think
because the honestly, the suffering and the poverty of say,
(36:49):
the poorest parts of Sub Saharan Africa is something that
we are largely blind to in our day to day lives.
It's not you know, we cover natural disasters when they occur,
but no one is covering literally the daily catastrophe of
child deaths due to infectious disease in Sub Saharan Africa.
(37:12):
You know, very roughly one thousand children die every day
of malaria. We know how to prevent it, and that's
not covered because it's well, I guess I don't know
exactly why. That's a question for you, not for me,
but it's not covered. And I think because of that,
on some level, we're able to live as if it's
not really there in that motivating force to get people
(37:34):
to see it and then act, isn't isn't happening.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
You've been doing this now for fifteen years ish. If
you go back to when you started, what's been surprising
to you? What has happened in a way you would
not have expected.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
I was really surprised when we started at how strange
our questions seem to the organizations that we were going to,
the question of how effective are your programs, how I'm
sure you accomplishing and how do you know seems like
a really an obvious question. Says are really surprising to me,
(38:17):
how much we've grown. When we started this, I think
we thought that we were just we were a couple
of guys who had this idiosyncratic interest in an approach
to charitable giving. And when we talked to people who
worked in philanthropy, they they reacted like we were nuts,
that no one would ever be into this. This is
(38:39):
not what donors go to galas, and donors like stories
and their names on buildings, and wow, it's shocking. You know,
people are people are normal. People are just giving three
hundred million dollars a year to help people around the world,
and they're buying large anonymous they're not getting their names
on buildings, and they're just you know, following along, trying
(38:59):
to make as big a difference as they can in
people's lives. So they'll never meet and you know, on
some level that maybe that makes sense, but that's also
really surprising.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
It seems like the happy surprised their happy surprise. I
appreciate your time very much. It was great to talk
with you. Yeah, that was great to be here. Thanks
so much. Jacob Ellie Hasenfeld is the co founder and
CEO of gif Well. Last conversation on the show is
with Nate Silver and Maria Konikova. Nate is a statistician,
(39:29):
Maria's a psychologist. They are both writers and together they
host a podcast called Risky Business. They are also both
professional poker players, and that's really why I wanted to
talk to them about charitable giving. One of the things
they do on their show is they talk about bringing
a poker mindset to the decision making of everyday life,
(39:50):
and so I wanted to hear from them how professional
gamblers think about giving money away. So, like, the core
idea of the show is making better decisions using this
expected value framework right in like one sentence, what's expected value?
Speaker 3 (40:09):
Dec did value is the net benefit you expect to
get averaged over all the uncertain outcomes. Now, I guess
with charitable giving, maybe it's more deterministic. Where we know,
for example, that mosquito nets in Africa have a high
return on investment. They say lives and prevent male area
(40:31):
at a relative of low costs. It's not like a
random element there exactly, although there are always some implementation issues,
but really it's a framework about utility.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
And I was just to jump in a little bit
to say that, you know, we have the economic definition
of expected value, and then when you look at behavioral
economics and the way that people actually make decisions, you
realize that there's a lot of psychology involved as well,
and so calculating expected value is not as straightforward as
(41:01):
just kind of doing these dollar calculations, because you know,
how do you put a dollar amount on how good
you feel after a decision or how bad you feel,
or the regret that you might feel when you don't
take a decision. And when we're looking at kind of
the broader picture of expected value, you do have to
try to quantify that a little bit and try to
(41:21):
account for all of those different psychological factors that come
into play as well.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
One of my favorite things about your show is when
you talk about the culture of professional poker players. Basically,
you're both professional poker players and you live in this
universe where people treat money really differently, right, And there
are these two terms that come up a lot on
the show two kinds of people, knits and dgens. What's
(41:48):
a knit? I'll leave this one to unit.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
A knit is basically George Costanzo. Right, It's like a
neurotic risk of verse cheap, but more someone who is
so neurotic that they aren't taking plus ev bets.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Right.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
They're two conservative for their your own good when it
comes to playing poker hands, for example, and have a
low openness to experience perhaps and can be annoying.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
They're the ones who want to itemize the bill. Uh
when wait, I didn't eat the app. I shouldn't have
to pay for one third of the app, that's the yeah.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
Whereas a djen is someone who likes to gamble, is
risk tolerant maybe to their own detriment, is freewheeling with
money and splashes around.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
Yes, and d gen is short for degenerate gambler, but
in a loving way. Right, that's my Fausually, yeah, So
in your experience, who is more generous a degenerate knit djen? Absolutely? Oh? Yeah,
for sure. I don't think it's even close. You guys
give to charity.
Speaker 5 (42:59):
I give to charitable causes that I believe in. So,
for instance, I gave a lot of money to Ukraine
when Russia invaded, and that is how kind of I
calculate my charitable giving. I understand that mosquito nets in
Africa are incredibly important. I have not given to malaria
because that is not something that you know, I feel
(43:21):
strongly about. There are other people feel strongly about that.
So for me part of it. You know, I have
given to educational causes. You know, I give to things
that I have a connection with and that I feel
also are underfunded.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Mari, you mentioned given to Ukraine, and I mean I
know you a little bit. I know your your life
story seems connected to that. Right, tell me about your
connection to helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (43:46):
So my dad is Ukrainian and my mom is from Moscow,
and I was born in Moscow and then came to
the United States when I was four years old and
have always been very anti the autocratic tendencies of Russia,
very anti Putin. And I think you know, when Putin
(44:08):
invented invaded Ukraine, to me, that was a no brainer.
I think at this point Ukraine is one of the
only things standing between US and the Third World War. Basically,
the fact that they're able to resist him. So for
me it was incredibly personal. And so I'm all in
on the Zelenski camp.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Nate Silver, do you give money away? I'm having to reevaluate.
I mean the short answers I haven't.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Uh huh. Does either saying on a show that you
haven't given money away or hearing Maria talk about giving
money away like honestly does it you think it makes
it any more likely that you'll give money away? You
think it's going to have any effect on you.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
I'm generally not a person who is governed by guilt.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Ah, that's I mean, I think I should.
Speaker 3 (44:54):
There's like a lot of long term financial planning that
gets put off. I mean, these are discussions that you know,
my household we've had and so we're we're aware of
this question and what we want to do with our
money in the long term, member thinking about it actively,
but kind of things get short circuited during I mean, look, clearly,
(45:15):
I think that you know, in some abstract sense, you
are being selfish if you're not. If you have a
comfortable life, then you are being selfish to not give.
But it's easy to make excuses.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
I appreciate your honesty. So Nate, does that make you
a knit and Maria the DJ in I never would
have guessed, well, but I am.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
I think Maria is also I am generous in those
other ways yea, and things like tips with things like
you know, picking up checks, even a fairly expensive meals
or something for my friends. And so maybe psychologically that
feels more satisfying than the abstract charitable giving.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Yes, I mean that is an interesting tension, right, Like
it feels better to buy lunch for your friend than
to send the money off to somebody thousands of miles away,
even though obviously the marginal benefit of that whatever one
hundred bucks, fifty bucks, any any bucks, is clearly greater
if you send it off thousand. Jacob in New Yorkers
(46:11):
be great. I was trying to be I was trying
to be a man of the people day and when
are we getting dinner? I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (46:17):
And yeah, and I also just want to want to
add a little bit to say that I think that
in this particular case, like role models really do matter
when it comes to charitable giving tendencies, so psychologically speaking,
and one of the things that has made me actually
(46:37):
kind of give more than I have in the past
is my parents, who don't have a lot of money
and you know, our single income because my mom uh
no longer works, and they give a recurring donation every
single month to causes that they believe strongly in, including Ukraine.
(46:58):
And when I think about it, I'm like, you can't
afford to do this, and yet they do it, and
that you know it I won't say guilts me into
but like it may, it makes me realize that, like
you know, it is important when you are donating to
causes where it actually makes a difference. Nate and I
talked a lot on our podcast about kind of donating
(47:19):
to political campaigns, and you know, don't donate to the
presidential campaign because they don't need the money. But I,
you know, I think that that's kind of that's what
we're talking about at the end, Where do you donate
in a way that your money actually makes an impact
right now? And it doesn't have to be millions of
dollars right you can leave. I hope I have millions
to leave at the end of my life to good causes,
(47:42):
but you know, there are causes where even a few
hundred dollars actually can make a huge difference, but.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
I guess because there probably is some pleasure from it. Right,
you kind of recognize the efemeral nature of money, and
it's kind of more an emotional reaction.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
And then when.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
I mean thinking about charity, it's kind of the more
rational part of your brain.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Right.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
You can make excuses along lines of, well, maybe just
give it away at the end of my life, and
I pay a lot of taxes, and you know, figuring
out where to give is a discussion have with your partner,
and that can get you know, we have disagreements about that,
and so it's different than the kind of, oh, it's
gett a nice bottle of wine and I'll pick I'll
pick up dinner tonight because I know you had a
rough tournament series or something like that.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Huh. I never thought of you as such an emotional guy.
So so I'm curious in particular, So this this show
is about giving away money fundamentally, and you know, we
can talk about, you know, maximizing ev and what charities
are good, but there's also just this more general idea
of pro social behavior. Spending money on your friends is
(48:44):
part of this, and so I'm curious, what's your favorite
Djen dropping a bunch of money on their friends on
charity on anything story.
Speaker 5 (48:53):
Yeah, well this isn't this isn't d Jenny, But I
think it's something that is quite important. The poker community
actually does give a shit ton of money to charity.
You know, those aren't the fun D Jenny stories, But
but that's I think, you know, I think it's important
to note that poker players actually are on top of this,
and there are a lot of poker players giving millions
(49:15):
to charity and matching charitable donations.
Speaker 2 (49:19):
Thanks you, guys, it was a delight to talk to you.
Thank you, Thank you. So just before we in the
show here, I want to just mention one last thing.
There was a moment in that last conversation when Nate
was talking about the reasons he hasn't given money. You
know how giving money to charity has tied up with
(49:39):
all these other household financial planning decisions, et cetera, et cetera.
And I thought back to that thing that Lori Santo
said at the beginning of the show about friction. You
know how friction and not knowing how to give or
who to give to winds up being this huge barrier.
And I thought about how Ellie Hassenfeld has spent all
this time trying to find charities that are very clearly
(50:00):
doing good that you can just give money to and
feel good about. So to close out the show today
and to fight against friction in my own life, I'm
going to go right now to that website that Laurie
was talking about giving multiplier dot org slash Happiness Lab,
and I'm gonna give fifty bucks. Is it the perfect
(50:22):
amount of money? I don't know. I'm just gonna do
it right now. Thanks very much to Nate Silver and
Maria Konakova, the host of Risky Business, Ellie Hassenfeld of GiveWell,
and to Lorie Santos, the host of The Happiness Lab,
who got me thinking about giving Tuesday in the first place.
(50:46):
Today's show was produced by Lucy Sullivan and Isabelle Carter,
edited by Sarah Nix, and engineered by Jake Gorsky. Special
thanks to Ryan Dilley, Farah Daygrunge, and Owen Miller. I'm
Jacob Goldstein and I host the Pushkin Show What's Your Problem?
Thanks for listening.
Pushkin.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
I'm Jacob Goldstein. I host a Pushkin podcast called What's
Your Problem? And I am here randomly talking to you
right now because today is the day before Giving Tuesday.
Giving Tuesday, as you may already know, is the Tuesday
after Thanksgiving, and it's supposed to be the day we
give money to charity. And I'm gonna be honest with you.
(00:43):
In my middle aged, somewhat calcified heart, I cringe a
little bit every time I hear the phrase giving Tuesday.
I think Giving Tuesday is not a real thing. It's
not a real day. It's just something somebody made up
a few years ago. But that cynicism is not helping anybody.
In fact, as it turns out, it isn't even helping me.
(01:05):
I know this to be true because over the past
decade or so, research has made two things really clear. One,
giving money away makes us feel better than we think
it will make us feel. In other words, we underestimate
the benefit to ourselves of giving money to others. That's
thing one think. Two is this, there are charities that
(01:28):
are proven, proven by really robust evidence, to do a
tremendous amount of good with the money we give them,
So Today, I and my colleagues at Pushkin are leaning
into Giving Tuesday. We are putting out this special Giving
Tuesday show to get into this evidence to really understand
why giving money makes us happy, why we don't do
(01:49):
it more, and who we should give money to. To
start out on the show, I'm going to talk with
Lori Santos. Laurie's a Yale psychologist who hosts a Pushkin
show called The Happiness Lab, and Laura and I are
going to talk about the evidence that shows that giving
makes us happy and then the obvious puzzle that follows
from that evidence. If giving makes us so happy, why
(02:11):
don't we give more? Later on the show, I'll talk
with Ellie Hasenfeld. Ellie is the co founder and CEO
of GiveWell, and he has spent nearly two decades scouring
the world studying the research to try to figure out
which charities do the most good with every dollar. And
then finally I'll talk with Maria Konikova and Nate Silver.
(02:33):
Maria and Nate are a pair of writers who host
a Pushkin podcast called Risky Business, but they're also both
professional poker players. They are people whose livelihoods depend on
making optimal bets. So I'll be talking to them about
how they bring that thinking to their charitable giving. Lorie Santos,
(02:57):
tell me why I am not giving enough money to charity.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Well, it's probably because your mind is leading you astray, right,
I mean, you're like a smart person, right. You probably
think through what would be the pros and cons of
giving a charity. You probably do some simulations in your
head about how it would feel for you, and you
know how the recipients of that money would feel. And
there's just tons of psychological evidence showing that when we
do those simulations, we get them really really wrong.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Huh. We don't know what makes us happy with giving money,
as with everything.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
As with everything. Yeah, I mean, in some ways, the
giving money part shouldn't be surprising.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
You know.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
I have a whole podcast about how we get happiness
wrong all the time. But this one's really insidious because
it means that we're like leaving opportunities not just to
make ourselves happier kind of on the table, but we're
also leaving opportunities to just do good in the world
and do good in society on the table too. So
in some ways, it's like even sadder Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Like people talk about win win, This is like lose lose.
It's right, I feel worse and everybody feels worse.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
And it's another case where we could be building the pie.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
You know, say I have you know, ten bucks sitting
around in my pocket, Right, it could spend it in
a way that makes me happy, or I could donate
it to a good cause. Right, I probably feel better.
The research would show spending at ten dollars on a
good charity, then I would feel kind of blowing it
on myself. But now the money is going to increase
happiness in other people, right, presumably somebody who really needed
(04:18):
that money. And so we're losing these opportunities to grow
the pie. And we really just need to understand this
bias better so that we can be happier.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So you learn it to the research that shows that
giving money away makes us happier. Tell me more about that, Like,
what is the academic work that's been done on this subject.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
Yeah, well there's tons of studies now, you know. One
of my favorite is a really straightforward one. It comes
out of the lab of Elizabeth Dunn and her colleagues
at the University of British Columbia, and their method is
really straightforward. They walk up to some person on the
street and they say, hey, do you want to be
in a psych study? I think the person kind of
begrudging all he's like, okay, fine, But then it starts
out it's an awesome psych study because Liz and her
(04:56):
colleagues just hand you twenty bucks and she're like cool.
The key, though, is that she tells you how to
spend that money. She either says, hey, by the end
of the day, do something nice for yourself with this money.
Treat yourself, you know, it's something you wouldn't have expected.
Or by the end of the day, do something nice
with this money for somebody else. Right, you could donate
it to charity, you could buy your friend a Lotte, Right,
it doesn't matter, but it has to be for somebody else.
(05:18):
And then the key is that she calls participants later
that day and even in some cases later in the week,
and what she finds is that people tend to feel
happier when they donate the money to somebody else or
do something nice for somebody else with the money, more
so than they feel when they spent the equivalent amount
of money on themselves, and the study I love because
it's just so straightforward. It's just suggests that what we
(05:41):
predict will happen, right, And Liz has actually done these
studies where she asks a different group of participants, Hey,
imagine you were in the study where I walked up
to you on the street and gave you twenty bucks?
Would you be happier spending that on yourself or somebody else?
And like robustly people say, oh, I'd be happier spending
on myself, right, because I get something out of the deal.
But what she finds is that we're just our prediction
is just totally wrong. When we spend on others, we're happier.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
So I feel like there's a subtlety there in the
spending on others group. Right. It is in some ways
more intuitive to me that like, whatever, buying lunch for
my friend would make me happy because my friend would
be so happy and we'd be happy together, and the
thing would be happening in this very you know, social,
(06:24):
real physical way, Like I get that one. It seems
less obvious to me that like giving twenty bucks to
a charity helping people in sub Saharan Africa would make
me happy, even though clearly intellectually, analytically, I know that
the twenty bucks going to sub Saharan Africa is going
to do more to increase abstract human happiness than buying
(06:46):
lunch for my friend who could have bought lunch for herself. So, like,
how does that piece of it work? How do we
think about that piece of it?
Speaker 1 (06:53):
You are onto an important point, which is that there
are better and worse ways to give to charity, right
in terms of like boosting our own happiness and sort
of feeling the impact from that, we are we are
a lot happier if we can see the impact of
our work, right, But even when we don't see the
impact of our work, the act of donating winds up
making us feel better than we think. Again, I share
(07:14):
the intuition that you have, Jacob, Right, Like, I know
these studies. I can kind of quote the stats and
I still don't have the intuition that it works. But
the results really just suggest that we feel better than
we assume we will.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Why do you think we get it wrong? I mean,
I know we get everything wrong, But why do you
think we get this wrong? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean we get everything wrong? Right, Our minds I
wish we could just like update like mind two point
zero would be so much better. I think there's some
there's some reasons that we get this one wrong. One
is sort of when we're doing an active kindness, what
we focus on as opposed to what the recipient will
focus on. Right, I'm sort of focused on whether or
not my gift is kind of in some sense competent,
(07:51):
Like am I doing the right thing? Am I picking
the right charity? Maybe in more local acts of kindness?
Am I doing it the right way? Right?
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Yeah? I don't want to be awkward. I don't want
to be rude or make this person feel some sense
of obligation or reciprocity that might not work for them.
Overthinking it, you're saying we're over things.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
But in terms of the overthinking, that's not what's happening.
On the other side. You think of the recipient of
a compliment, right, If you know, if someone walks up
to you in the streets like, hey, you know love
those glasses? They really see you, Jacob, like nicely done.
You're not thinking you you mean it and I like it,
But you're not thinking of like did they say it right?
Did they use the right adjective, was it cool glasses
(08:29):
or stylish? You're just like, oh my gosh, I'm surprised,
and I have this incredible warm feeling. And so this
is part of the disconnect, is that when we're making
the decision to do something nice, we're overthinking, we're caught
up and if we're doing it right and so on.
But the recipients they don't feel any of that. They're
just like, oh my gosh, I feel amazing. And so
we kind of mispredict what they're paying attention to when
(08:51):
they react, and that means their reactions are often a
lot more positive than we expect. And then we're like, oh,
I guess, I guess it was nice to do that
kind thing for somebody.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
It's the broader lesson of like everybody's just thinking about
themselves all the time. We're thinking about ourselves as givers
and am I the optimal giver? Am I giving in
the optimal way? But the recipients aren't thinking about you.
They're just thinking about.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Them Yeah, And we get so caught up in the
awkwardness of it.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
You know, how many compliments have you not given just
because you're like, oh, I don't want to do it
wrong or seem weird and some of Nick Eppley's a
professor at the University of Chicago's data. He finds that
about a third of the compliments we think in our heads,
we don't actually tell the people around us, right, which
when you think compliments usually are received really well and
make people's day, it's like a lot of positivity that's
(09:36):
just like stuck inside people's heads that we're not giving out.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Friction seems like another interesting piece, right, there's like you're
in your own head too much. And the other core
piece is like, ah, I don't know. I'm just some
guy in the world. How do I figure out who
to give to? And like, I feel like that one
is underrated in the world in general. Right, Like we
just we're like water, We just flow to the easiest route.
I mean, how do you see that playing out in
(10:00):
charity more generally, in giving more generally?
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Yeah, I mean I think that friction is a huge thing, right.
I Mean a good friend of mine just had a
baby with his wife, and my instagraction was like, oh
my gosh, I should do something nice for them. Maybe
I'll get them some food or some onesies or something.
But I was like, do I just show up at
their house? Like do they have any dietary restrictions that
I'm forgetting about?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Is this we?
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Like all again, all this overthinking in my head. But
another good friend of ours was like, I'm setting up
a meal train. Here's the day you click on this, lin,
It's super easy, right, what you're going to you know,
give him if it's a lasagn or whatever, here's how
you drop it off. She just made it really easy
for me to do the nice thing that I was
thinking about doing. Anyway, I needed somebody to make that
(10:42):
friction go away for me to help. And so I
think there's so many cases of this in terms of
what we could do to do nice things for others,
whether that's with a charitable donation or even just like
you know, asking a friend if they need some support,
checking in on the people we care about, sharing compliments
and so on. The friction kind of gets in the way.
And I think this is the idea, is that we
(11:03):
can overcome the friction by kind of reducing how much
work it is for us to do the nice thing. Right,
next thing is just texting a friend or you're already there,
you know, like you know in the subway and you
compliment somebody who's walking by. Right, these are the kinds
of things that we can do quickly, and if we
do them enough, then there's a second way that we
can reduce friction, which is that it just kind of
(11:23):
becomes a habit. Right, if we just get in the
habit of doing this over and over again, doing more
and more nice things, then all of a sudden, it
just becomes easier. Because so much that we know about
human psychology, even though we're kind of you know, in
the crappy beta version, shows that when we do something
over and over again, it just becomes easier to do
that same thing. And so one of the giving Tuesday
(11:43):
practices that I talk about in my show that Happiness
Lab is just hey, practice doing nice things, and it
will make it easier. You'll kind of experience less friction
over time, just because, like it's just the thing you
do when you see somebody you know at work, who
you know is wearing something nice or they do something
great in a team meeting. You'll just get good at
expressing compliments, expressing gratitude. It'll just become second nature.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Told you, So, you have this project through your show
the happiness lab of giving money away, like built on
this premise that we're talking about that not only would
recipients be better if people gave more, but the givers
themselves would be better if people gave more. You have
this project that you do every year for Giving Tuesday,
(12:26):
which is coming up. Tell me about that project. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
So the site that we've worked with is this group
called giving multiplier dot org, and their goal is to
fight a different kind of thing that can go wrong
when we think about donating to charities, which is that
many of us really do want to be kind of
competent about it. We want our money to go to
really good causes in the world, but we also kind
of fall prey to the causes that feel really close
(12:50):
to my heart, right you know, like I might want
to give to my local food bank, which is great,
you know, it's good to do that, but that ten
bucks I give to my local food bank, it might
not have as much impact as you know, giving to
somebody maybe an extreme poverty right in like Sub Saharan Africa.
You know, I haven't really analyzed as my local food
bank doing the best with the money and so on,
(13:10):
and so Giving Multiplier dot org has this has this
really nice combination of they say, Okay, you really feel
compelled to give to your food bank, but what if
you gave just part of that ten bucks to one
of these so called super effective charities. Right they've done
the research. They're like the dollar that you give from
that ten bucks to the super effective charity is going
to go even further. And so they kind of allow
(13:31):
you to make this distinction between your your heart and
what you kind of really feel locally, the kind of
thing that make you feel good because you can see
the impact in your community versus what's doing the best
work out there and giving. Multiplier dot Org this year
has picked a really great super effective charity which is
called Give Directly. This is this group that just gives
(13:51):
these unconditional cash transfers, like no strings attached, like cast
bonus to people living in extreme poverty.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
And there's a Happiness Lab. You are l right, shout
it out, Shout it from the rooftops. What is it?
Speaker 1 (14:03):
It's giving Multiplier dot org slash Happiness Lab super easy.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Go right now. Phones are open, operators are standing by,
you know.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And one of the things we've seen is that a
lot of our listeners will donate five bucks, three bucks
in some cases, but those kinds of donations really add up,
and especially if part of your donation is going to
one of these super effective charities, like that dollar is
going a really long way.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Yeah, I'll say, And I know, like analyzing super effective
charities ends up being about like randomized controlled trials, which
is great, like real evidence. But I will say that
I actually for a story I did ten years ago
or so, I went to Kenya to a village where
Give Directly was giving money, and I saw how profound
(14:50):
the impact is. I mean, it's people get one thousand
dollars at least at that time, no strings attached, and
like I talk to a guy who bought a motorcycle
so that he could start a motorcycle taxi business. Right,
So it's not just like they buy food and then
the money runs out. It's people have no capital, they
have no money, and so getting a th thousand dollars
allows them to make these investments that can change their
(15:12):
lives forever. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
We saw that last year where we really focused on
Give Directly in particular and one community specifically. So we
worked with this community, Kebobo in Rwanda, which is a
tiny village just on the outside of Kigali, the capital.
But they just like all, most of the people in
the community live off less than a dollar a day,
and just like you're saying, they just lack so many
of the basic conveniences that we take for granted. Right,
(15:36):
they have to hike two hours to get access to water,
and then the water comes back and it's like, are
you going to drink some water? A you're going to
give your kid a shower? Right, There's no access to
schools and these kinds of things. And last year, Happiness
Lab listeners were able to generate over one hundred thousand
dollars for this community in particular, And so, just like
you're saying, give directly, was able to give each person
in the community one thousand dollars unconditional cash transfer, and
(15:59):
the money went to things like motorbikes like you mentioned,
fixing roofs, buying mattresses. Right, most of the people in
Kebobo were sleeping on the floor. They just didn't have
access to a mattress. But some people did these really
creative things that one of the things I didn't expect
is that one of the couples that got the cash transfer,
bought a pub, which you might think like, oh, they
got a pub.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
A pub it like a bar, like a I love that,
But the bar.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Like wound up employing people in the community. It became
this community hub where people could get together with each
other at night, and it's generated more income for them.
So now they're turning kind of the side of their
pub that they put together into a little mini grocery store,
which is one of the first spots that people can
buy food in town, so that they don't have to
leave town. And so it's like, if you leave it
up to people's ingenuity, they kind of come up with
(16:45):
these interesting things.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I mean there's a really simple idea. Like the
reason I wanted to do that story all those years
ago is like people know what they need, right, Like
they know if they need food or a motorcycle or
a roof, they just don't have the money, yes, right,
So like if you give them the money, they can
buy what they need. That's the great thing about money.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah, and this is something we forget with gifts in general.
I think this comes up in charity, but there's also
a work you know, giving Tuesdays sort of the prelude
to other holidays and gift giving moments coming up, and
it's just something we get wrong all the time. Like
we want to be able to come up with the
creative gift for somebody, but one of the best ways
to figure out the best gift is to just ask
people what do you want? And if you buy someone
(17:28):
that thing, they're going to be happy because that was
what they wanted.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Yeah, it goes back to the like we're thinking about
ourselves right, even when we're giving gifts this notionally you know,
other focused thing, we're actually like, oh am I a
good gift giver? Am I a good It's just ego.
It's just we're just screwing ourselves with our ego as always. Yeah,
it was great to talk with you, Laurie. It was
(17:52):
It was truly a delightful conversation. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
This is super Thanks for sharing the love on Giving Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Laurie Santos is a professor of psychology at Yale and
the host of the Happiness Lab. They have a whole
episode on the psychology of generosity coming out this week.
We'll be back in a minute with my conversation with
Ellie Hassenfeld. Who spent nearly two decades scouring the planet
to find the most effective ways to spend money on
other people. Okay, so Laurie Santos explained convincingly that giving
(18:39):
away money makes us feel good. So now the question
is who do we give the money to? That is
basically the question that Ellie Hassenfeld asked himself almost twenty
years ago. It's a question that led him to co
found give Well, where he's now the CEO, and it's
a question that, in some really interesting ways, as you
will hear, has started to change the way charities themselves
(19:02):
think about what they do. To start, I asked Ellie
how he came to found GiveWell in the first place.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
Back in two thousand and six, I was a couple
of years out of college working at a hedge fund,
and a friend, Holding Karnowski, and I wanted to give
to charity. And at the time, we were trying to
give a few thousand bucks away and we wanted to
find charitable organizations that were getting a lot of bang
for their buck. And when we went looking online for information,
(19:33):
we just couldn't find great information about what charities do
and how well it works. We heard a lot about
the overhead ratio, how much did they spend on administration
versus programs, but nothing that said this is what they're
doing and this is how many people they'll help with
their programs. We spent months trying to answer this question.
(19:54):
The two of us got a little bit obsessed with it,
and eventually, after about a year of working on this
project left our jobs to start give Well as a
full time project. And the idea was to create the
resource that we had been looking for as donors well.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
And there is this interesting sort of broader idea in
the charity world, right in the philanthropic world, which is
what are they measuring? You Know, you can have a
charity that builds schools, and they might tell you how
many schools they build, but presumably you're not actually giving
money to build the school, right, You're giving money so
(20:29):
that children get a better education. And so I'm curious,
I mean, as you started to look deeper at the
time as you founded give Well, like what was just
the basic landscape of measurement within the charity world, Like.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
It's just really hard to get information about the outcomes
that we cared about that I think donors ultimately do
care about and those outcomes would be things like, do
you save children's lives if you are providing funds for
health programs? If you're trying to reduce poverty, do you
increase people's incomes so that they can buy more of
(21:06):
the kinds of things that they want? And I would
say that buy and large. This information was not available
when we were calling up organizations and asking them for information.
They were often shocked that anyone would be even asking
a question like this, because it was just in two
thousand and six, two thousand and seven. It was completely
(21:27):
unusual that someone would be wondering about like what what
is the program actually accomplishing? What is the impact that
it's happening on the world?
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Huh? I mean, is it almost a rude question? Was
it almost like? Look, we're spending our lives helping these people,
We're giving them cows, we're building clinics, Like who are you?
What are you asking about? Why? Where do you come
off asking these questions?
Speaker 4 (21:50):
I think it's definitely an odd question to ask something
that I say a lot internally. I could well now
is that you know, we're the people who react skeptically
to organizations saying we're just trying to help people around
the world, and we say, well, how do you know
and can you prove it? And you know, that's not
a socially normal thing to do, but I think it's
(22:11):
necessary because gosh, it's so hard to have an impact
on people around the world, and asking those questions helps
get better information so we can shure that funding goes
to the best place.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
So you do have this short list of pop charities
that seems kind of like the center of what you
do in some way. Right, you've looked at all of
these charities in the world, then you've landed on this
very small number. Briefly, what are they?
Speaker 4 (22:36):
Yeah, so you know, these top charities account for about
two thirds of the funds we direct. There are four
of them. One is the Against Malaria Foundation, which delivers
malaria nets in Africa. The second one is called Malaria Consortium,
and we support their Seasonal Malaria Chemo Prevention program. That's
a preventative malaria program giving medicine to young children. The
(22:57):
third one, and these are in no particular order, but
the third one is Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation program.
This is a program that gives a small amount of
vitamin A children under the age of five, and it
is shown in numerous studies to reduce child mortality. And
then finally, New Incentives, which is the organization that provides
(23:19):
conditional cash trans or small cash transfers to encourage immunization.
You know, the top charities reflect you know, roughly two
thirds of the funds that we direct, and we see
them as the you know, really that tried and true.
Like if you're a donor and you want to have
a lot of impact and you want to have confidence
in that impact. These are organizations that we have followed
(23:39):
for many years and we have a lot of confidence
in because they are there's a lot of evidence that
supports their impact.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
So how do you get from sort of generally being
interested in charity and in you know, research driven outcomes
to specifically focusing on saving the lives of children in
the developing world. Yeah, I mean so, at.
Speaker 4 (24:04):
Its core, GiveWell is about finding outstanding programs that we
can support with the aim of having the most impact
with the funds that we direct. And when we started,
we didn't know where we were going to find those programs,
So we were looking at health programs focused on low
(24:24):
income countries, but also social programs focused on New York
City where we lived at the time, so job training programs,
education programs, et cetera. And after our first year of
work where we were focused on both US social programs
and also global programs, we looked at the data and
just saw how big the difference was in what a
(24:46):
dollar could accomplish overseas versus at home. And just to
make it concrete, you know, we estimate roughly, but I
think it's the right ballpark that five thousand or so
dollars will avert the death of a young child in
a low income country. That's about what it costs to
put a child through school for a couple of years
(25:09):
in a New York City charter school. And so that
differential really showed us that the opportunities to use money
to have a big impactor over on the world where
we're stronger overseas, and it drove us. It drove us
to focus our efforts there. We're finding the groups that are,
(25:30):
I think, like importantly like not sure that their own
programs are working, and so want to ensure that they're
gathering the data so that they know where the programs
are effective, where they're struggling so that they can make
changes to run those programs more effectively.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
Yeah, I mean, so that's an interesting idea, right, Like
that idea of the groups themselves being unsure, it requires
a sense of what is what is the real end point? Right?
I think quite often and reasonably, like things are clearly
helpful if you whatever, give someone a cow and you
(26:08):
know training on how to take care of that cow, like,
pretty clearly that person is going to be better off
than if you hadn't done it, And so it might
not be obvious to say, oh, we need to measure, well,
how much does it cost to give them the cow?
How much better off are they? Are there things we
could change that would be even more helpful, Like most
people clearly don't do that, right, Most people in their
(26:29):
jobs in many domains are not constantly measuring and trying
to optimize.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Yeah, I mean, I just think the stakes are so
high that it's just absolutely critical that there is a
recognition that failure can happen and we have to do
the best we can. Billions of dollars go to health
aid every year, and the stakes are quite literally life
and death. And so therefore the difference between some of
(26:54):
the best programs that can very roughly say, avert the
death of a young child for approximately five to ten
thousand dollars, and then other programs which could have very
limited impact I think in the worst case, even cause harm.
Measurement in that feedback loop to say this, we want
to see whether it's working, we want to see the
(27:17):
extent to which it's working, and we want to learn
from what we've done so that we can do better.
That's true for the organizations we work with. That's true
for us as an organization. You know, we're trying to
follow the same project of learning from our own track
record in history to make better decisions in the future
and hopefully help people even more. The groups that we
work with most, and I think the kinds of people
(27:38):
who are most drawn to what we're doing, whether it's
donors or practitioners, are people who's I think their interest,
you know, the idea that they have that we have
is to try to find the way to use charitable
dollars to accomplish as much good as possible. And if
that idea is preventing HIV and young children, then great.
(28:00):
And if we can do better, if we can distribute
oral rehydration solution to prevent deaths from diarrhea, or if
we can encourage a testing and treatment to prevent cases
of tuberculosis and children. What I ultimately care about. The
thing that's important to me is just helping children, and
I'm not drawn to the specific cause or disease as
(28:22):
much as the outcome, which is trying to enable more
people to live long, healthy lives.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I feel like, you know, traditionally philanthropy was largely about
making donors feel good, and maybe it still is to
some degree, the nature of human nature being what it is.
But it seems like the growth of give well and
of sort of research driven philanthropy more generally has coincided
(28:51):
with the long boom of Silicon Valley, right, And it
strikes me that the kind of people who get rich
in tech are more numerically driven, are more metrics oriented
perhaps than earlier generations of rich people well, and that
that might be sort of part of what is going on,
(29:12):
part of the wind at your back, part of the
rise of research driven philanthropy. You buy that.
Speaker 4 (29:19):
I think there's a kind of person in tech and
also in parts of finance. Those are the two sectors
from which we draw most of our donors who have
I think the perspective that they take on the world
as one we know that there's a lot we can
be wrong about. We know there can be big differences
(29:39):
in the investments we make or the decisions we make.
As a company leader, we also know that we can
be wrong and we want to learn about how to
do it better. And I do think we see that
coming out of those industries and it's a big part
of what has helped us grow to the size that
we are today.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
So you were mentioning that when you first started out
and you were calling up charities and saying, what evidence
do you have that you're actually helping people basically, and
they would say, how dare you? Who are you? Why
are you asking me this? I'm spending my life helping people.
What do they say now when you call them up?
Has that changed?
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Very practically? It's changed for us because when I was
calling people up almost twenty years ago, I was offering
them a thousand bucks and you know, now we have
a lot of funding to give, and so that does
make them more responsive.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Oh, that's interesting. So there's a sort of pull. So basically,
because you're directing hundreds of millions of dollars a year,
organizations have an incentive to be more research based.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Yeah, I mean very fundamentally. You know, there's a there's
a problem so to speak, in the charitable market where
the person deciding to open their wallet is not the
person who's ultimately receiving the service. So there's a disconnect
between the recipient and the giver. Where in the consumer
market that we're used to, you know, I purchase my
(31:02):
laptop and then I also use it and see how
good it is.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, and so I think, and if it sucks you,
you that company goes out of years.
Speaker 4 (31:08):
Out of desness. But that's work security if you're great
at fundraising from donors but terrible at delivering a program
no one might ever know. And so very I think
just concretely give well has helped support the literal in
a very small way, the creation of an incentive to
operate in a way that is focused on demonstrating impact,
(31:30):
because the dollars that we have to give, the dollars
that we have to influence, are going after that evidence
of strong impact. And I should say, of course, like
we are just part of a larger and I think
ever growing ecosystem. You see this in the academics who
launched the randomized control trial movement in economics, organizations like
(31:53):
Evidence Action, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Give Directly. I
mean this, It's a large and growing group of institutions,
even beyond the scope of just give Well, that are
operating in a way that is explicitly aiming to deliver
great results and demonstrate that those results are coming to fruition.
And I think that is just a massive change from
(32:14):
where we were twenty years ago.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
So you mentioned give directly, and as it happens, the
there's a sort of charitable giving project out of one
of the shows at Pushkin that gives money to give
directly basically. And I'm curious about give well sort of
ongoing evaluation of give directly, Like what do you think
what do you think of give directly as work in
a quantitative professional way? Yeah, I think.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Like, extremely, extremely highly of them. I've personally been a
gift directly donor for many years, you know, continued to
give to them last year and will this year because
I really love what they do. I think it's just
so critical to say, you know, with some of our giving,
let's make sure that we're just supporting people to purchase,
you know, what they most.
Speaker 2 (32:59):
Want still to come. On the show, Ellie talks about
some of the most surprising things he's seen in his
nearly two decades.
Speaker 4 (33:09):
In the charity world.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
What do you make of the fact that five thousand
dollars can save a child's life?
Speaker 4 (33:27):
I think it is just an illustration of on some
level how unjust our world is, you know, potentially how
I think all of us, myself included, don't perhaps don't
really take it seriously as we should, the kind of
impact that we can have overseas. But fundamentally, you know,
I think it shows that something is very broken in
(33:50):
our system for allocating resources globally, because it's very hard
to accept that it's possible to save someone's life for
five thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Yeah, I mean with all the money, even with all
the money that people give way, Like why don't people
give enough money to buy bed nets for kids so
they don't get malaria? Right? Like there's some amount of money.
The more money people give, the less valuable each marginal
net would be, right, Like, why haven't people given enough
(34:24):
money to these programs to sort of give away all
the bed nets that you need to give away, and
give away all the malaria medicine that you'd need to
give away to stop kids from dying of malaria, at
least in these high intensity malaria areas where it's obvious
that kids are going to die of malaria every year.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
I think, first of all, it's just worth noting how
much progress we have made globally in the last twenty
five years. The US government has given huge amounts to
a program called pepfar focused on HIV, the President's Malaria
Initiative focused on malaria, and has been instrumental in the
creation of the Global Fund, which focuses on HTB and malaria,
(35:05):
and GAVI, which focuses on immanizations. So since the year
two thousand on a, funding going to global health problems
has gone up a huge amount. It has plateaued more recently,
but it's gone up a huge amount, and we see
a massive reduction in child mortality. So we're doing a
lot better today than we were in the recent past.
(35:25):
And then I guess like, fundamentally, I don't know why
people don't give more or even give more to these charities, right,
It's it's more a question of direction. It's not even
why don't people give more money. It's like, if it's
really that easy to save a kid's life, like we
want that number to go up, right, like the cheaper
(35:48):
it is to save a kid's life.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
I mean, it's kind of you cuts both ways. Right
on the one end, it's like, well, great, we know
a thing that is helpful. But on the other hand, like, well,
let's buy all the bed bets. So it's not so easy,
do you know what I'm saying? Uh?
Speaker 4 (36:01):
Completely, And yeah, I think that you know, give Well
raises about three hundred million dollars a year. A give
Well that was raising a billion dollars a year would
the marginal dollars would be much less less cost effective
because we would have gone much further.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
Weirdly, you want to get to a place where it's
more expensive to save a child's life, Like the more
expensive it is, the less inequality there is in the world,
the more kids' lives we're saving.
Speaker 4 (36:26):
Exactly exactly, you know. And then I think I Give
Well itself is an institution that has raised much more
money over the last fifteen years than was raised previously
and is going and I think it reflects more people giving.
Why aren't people giving more to these programs? I think
because the honestly, the suffering and the poverty of say,
(36:49):
the poorest parts of Sub Saharan Africa is something that
we are largely blind to in our day to day lives.
It's not you know, we cover natural disasters when they occur,
but no one is covering literally the daily catastrophe of
child deaths due to infectious disease in Sub Saharan Africa.
(37:12):
You know, very roughly one thousand children die every day
of malaria. We know how to prevent it, and that's
not covered because it's well, I guess I don't know
exactly why. That's a question for you, not for me,
but it's not covered. And I think because of that,
on some level, we're able to live as if it's
not really there in that motivating force to get people
(37:34):
to see it and then act, isn't isn't happening.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
You've been doing this now for fifteen years ish. If
you go back to when you started, what's been surprising
to you? What has happened in a way you would
not have expected.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
I was really surprised when we started at how strange
our questions seem to the organizations that we were going to,
the question of how effective are your programs, how I'm
sure you accomplishing and how do you know seems like
a really an obvious question. Says are really surprising to me,
(38:17):
how much we've grown. When we started this, I think
we thought that we were just we were a couple
of guys who had this idiosyncratic interest in an approach
to charitable giving. And when we talked to people who
worked in philanthropy, they they reacted like we were nuts,
that no one would ever be into this. This is
(38:39):
not what donors go to galas, and donors like stories
and their names on buildings, and wow, it's shocking. You know,
people are people are normal. People are just giving three
hundred million dollars a year to help people around the world,
and they're buying large anonymous they're not getting their names
on buildings, and they're just you know, following along, trying
(38:59):
to make as big a difference as they can in
people's lives. So they'll never meet and you know, on
some level that maybe that makes sense, but that's also
really surprising.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
It seems like the happy surprised their happy surprise. I
appreciate your time very much. It was great to talk
with you. Yeah, that was great to be here. Thanks
so much. Jacob Ellie Hasenfeld is the co founder and
CEO of gif Well. Last conversation on the show is
with Nate Silver and Maria Konikova. Nate is a statistician,
(39:29):
Maria's a psychologist. They are both writers and together they
host a podcast called Risky Business. They are also both
professional poker players, and that's really why I wanted to
talk to them about charitable giving. One of the things
they do on their show is they talk about bringing
a poker mindset to the decision making of everyday life,
(39:50):
and so I wanted to hear from them how professional
gamblers think about giving money away. So, like, the core
idea of the show is making better decisions using this
expected value framework right in like one sentence, what's expected value?
Speaker 3 (40:09):
Dec did value is the net benefit you expect to
get averaged over all the uncertain outcomes. Now, I guess
with charitable giving, maybe it's more deterministic. Where we know,
for example, that mosquito nets in Africa have a high
return on investment. They say lives and prevent male area
(40:31):
at a relative of low costs. It's not like a
random element there exactly, although there are always some implementation issues,
but really it's a framework about utility.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
And I was just to jump in a little bit
to say that, you know, we have the economic definition
of expected value, and then when you look at behavioral
economics and the way that people actually make decisions, you
realize that there's a lot of psychology involved as well,
and so calculating expected value is not as straightforward as
(41:01):
just kind of doing these dollar calculations, because you know,
how do you put a dollar amount on how good
you feel after a decision or how bad you feel,
or the regret that you might feel when you don't
take a decision. And when we're looking at kind of
the broader picture of expected value, you do have to
try to quantify that a little bit and try to
(41:21):
account for all of those different psychological factors that come
into play as well.
Speaker 2 (41:26):
One of my favorite things about your show is when
you talk about the culture of professional poker players. Basically,
you're both professional poker players and you live in this
universe where people treat money really differently, right, And there
are these two terms that come up a lot on
the show two kinds of people, knits and dgens. What's
(41:48):
a knit? I'll leave this one to unit.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
A knit is basically George Costanzo. Right, It's like a
neurotic risk of verse cheap, but more someone who is
so neurotic that they aren't taking plus ev bets.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Right.
Speaker 3 (42:07):
They're two conservative for their your own good when it
comes to playing poker hands, for example, and have a
low openness to experience perhaps and can be annoying.
Speaker 2 (42:18):
They're the ones who want to itemize the bill. Uh
when wait, I didn't eat the app. I shouldn't have
to pay for one third of the app, that's the yeah.
Speaker 3 (42:29):
Whereas a djen is someone who likes to gamble, is
risk tolerant maybe to their own detriment, is freewheeling with
money and splashes around.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
Yes, and d gen is short for degenerate gambler, but
in a loving way. Right, that's my Fausually, yeah, So
in your experience, who is more generous a degenerate knit djen? Absolutely? Oh? Yeah,
for sure. I don't think it's even close. You guys
give to charity.
Speaker 5 (42:59):
I give to charitable causes that I believe in. So,
for instance, I gave a lot of money to Ukraine
when Russia invaded, and that is how kind of I
calculate my charitable giving. I understand that mosquito nets in
Africa are incredibly important. I have not given to malaria
because that is not something that you know, I feel
(43:21):
strongly about. There are other people feel strongly about that.
So for me part of it. You know, I have
given to educational causes. You know, I give to things
that I have a connection with and that I feel
also are underfunded.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Mari, you mentioned given to Ukraine, and I mean I
know you a little bit. I know your your life
story seems connected to that. Right, tell me about your
connection to helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (43:46):
So my dad is Ukrainian and my mom is from Moscow,
and I was born in Moscow and then came to
the United States when I was four years old and
have always been very anti the autocratic tendencies of Russia,
very anti Putin. And I think you know, when Putin
(44:08):
invented invaded Ukraine, to me, that was a no brainer.
I think at this point Ukraine is one of the
only things standing between US and the Third World War. Basically,
the fact that they're able to resist him. So for
me it was incredibly personal. And so I'm all in
on the Zelenski camp.
Speaker 3 (44:27):
Nate Silver, do you give money away? I'm having to reevaluate.
I mean the short answers I haven't.
Speaker 2 (44:34):
Uh huh. Does either saying on a show that you
haven't given money away or hearing Maria talk about giving
money away like honestly does it you think it makes
it any more likely that you'll give money away? You
think it's going to have any effect on you.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
I'm generally not a person who is governed by guilt.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Ah, that's I mean, I think I should.
Speaker 3 (44:54):
There's like a lot of long term financial planning that
gets put off. I mean, these are discussions that you know,
my household we've had and so we're we're aware of
this question and what we want to do with our
money in the long term, member thinking about it actively,
but kind of things get short circuited during I mean, look, clearly,
(45:15):
I think that you know, in some abstract sense, you
are being selfish if you're not. If you have a
comfortable life, then you are being selfish to not give.
But it's easy to make excuses.
Speaker 2 (45:25):
I appreciate your honesty. So Nate, does that make you
a knit and Maria the DJ in I never would
have guessed, well, but I am.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
I think Maria is also I am generous in those
other ways yea, and things like tips with things like
you know, picking up checks, even a fairly expensive meals
or something for my friends. And so maybe psychologically that
feels more satisfying than the abstract charitable giving.
Speaker 2 (45:51):
Yes, I mean that is an interesting tension, right, Like
it feels better to buy lunch for your friend than
to send the money off to somebody thousands of miles away,
even though obviously the marginal benefit of that whatever one
hundred bucks, fifty bucks, any any bucks, is clearly greater
if you send it off thousand. Jacob in New Yorkers
(46:11):
be great. I was trying to be I was trying
to be a man of the people day and when
are we getting dinner? I totally agree.
Speaker 5 (46:17):
And yeah, and I also just want to want to
add a little bit to say that I think that
in this particular case, like role models really do matter
when it comes to charitable giving tendencies, so psychologically speaking,
and one of the things that has made me actually
(46:37):
kind of give more than I have in the past
is my parents, who don't have a lot of money
and you know, our single income because my mom uh
no longer works, and they give a recurring donation every
single month to causes that they believe strongly in, including Ukraine.
(46:58):
And when I think about it, I'm like, you can't
afford to do this, and yet they do it, and
that you know it I won't say guilts me into
but like it may, it makes me realize that, like
you know, it is important when you are donating to
causes where it actually makes a difference. Nate and I
talked a lot on our podcast about kind of donating
(47:19):
to political campaigns, and you know, don't donate to the
presidential campaign because they don't need the money. But I,
you know, I think that that's kind of that's what
we're talking about at the end, Where do you donate
in a way that your money actually makes an impact
right now? And it doesn't have to be millions of
dollars right you can leave. I hope I have millions
to leave at the end of my life to good causes,
(47:42):
but you know, there are causes where even a few
hundred dollars actually can make a huge difference, but.
Speaker 3 (47:48):
I guess because there probably is some pleasure from it. Right,
you kind of recognize the efemeral nature of money, and
it's kind of more an emotional reaction.
Speaker 2 (47:55):
And then when.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
I mean thinking about charity, it's kind of the more
rational part of your brain.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Right.
Speaker 3 (48:02):
You can make excuses along lines of, well, maybe just
give it away at the end of my life, and
I pay a lot of taxes, and you know, figuring
out where to give is a discussion have with your partner,
and that can get you know, we have disagreements about that,
and so it's different than the kind of, oh, it's
gett a nice bottle of wine and I'll pick I'll
pick up dinner tonight because I know you had a
rough tournament series or something like that.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
Huh. I never thought of you as such an emotional guy.
So so I'm curious in particular, So this this show
is about giving away money fundamentally, and you know, we
can talk about, you know, maximizing ev and what charities
are good, but there's also just this more general idea
of pro social behavior. Spending money on your friends is
(48:44):
part of this, and so I'm curious, what's your favorite
Djen dropping a bunch of money on their friends on
charity on anything story.
Speaker 5 (48:53):
Yeah, well this isn't this isn't d Jenny, But I
think it's something that is quite important. The poker community
actually does give a shit ton of money to charity.
You know, those aren't the fun D Jenny stories, But
but that's I think, you know, I think it's important
to note that poker players actually are on top of this,
and there are a lot of poker players giving millions
(49:15):
to charity and matching charitable donations.
Speaker 2 (49:19):
Thanks you, guys, it was a delight to talk to you.
Thank you, Thank you. So just before we in the
show here, I want to just mention one last thing.
There was a moment in that last conversation when Nate
was talking about the reasons he hasn't given money. You
know how giving money to charity has tied up with
(49:39):
all these other household financial planning decisions, et cetera, et cetera.
And I thought back to that thing that Lori Santo
said at the beginning of the show about friction. You
know how friction and not knowing how to give or
who to give to winds up being this huge barrier.
And I thought about how Ellie Hassenfeld has spent all
this time trying to find charities that are very clearly
(50:00):
doing good that you can just give money to and
feel good about. So to close out the show today
and to fight against friction in my own life, I'm
going to go right now to that website that Laurie
was talking about giving multiplier dot org slash Happiness Lab,
and I'm gonna give fifty bucks. Is it the perfect
(50:22):
amount of money? I don't know. I'm just gonna do
it right now. Thanks very much to Nate Silver and
Maria Konakova, the host of Risky Business, Ellie Hassenfeld of GiveWell,
and to Lorie Santos, the host of The Happiness Lab,
who got me thinking about giving Tuesday in the first place.
(50:46):
Today's show was produced by Lucy Sullivan and Isabelle Carter,
edited by Sarah Nix, and engineered by Jake Gorsky. Special
thanks to Ryan Dilley, Farah Daygrunge, and Owen Miller. I'm
Jacob Goldstein and I host the Pushkin Show What's Your Problem?
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.