Hello
Fellow Bloggers, Classmates, and Charity Navigators,
I want to talk about a topic that has been at the pinnacle of
the class. Since week one we have had a continuous discussion of head versus
heart. How should we donate? Should it be something that we feel very passionately
about? Or should it be based on data and statistics that we all so fear. It
appears that our class has become extremely polarized on this issue.
As compassionate human beings we are moved by stories of
tragedy and sadness. Nothing pulls at our heart strings like a story of a
struggling child. Small and her coauthors, George Loewenstein of Carnegie
Mellon University and Paul Slovic of Decision Research, a non-profit research
firm in Eugene, Ore. state, “money is often concentrated on a single victim
even though more people would be helped if resources were dispersed or spent
protecting future victims." This speaks to the core issue captivating our
class. As stated by Andrea in her blog post, we are suffering from a tragedy of
the commons because in our attempt to achieve the best possible outcome we are
concentrating onto one instead of many. We all want to donate to that sad small
face. We need that story attached to the crying child, shell-shocked from war,
poverty, disease or whatever else. But why?
I do not want to say this is inherently wrong or bad, as this
is human nature. However, if we can make ourselves aware of the situation maybe
we can overcome this inclination to donate to one specific individual. We all
want to help others. I know each one of you is an amazing individual with a
genuine sense of compassion. But we need to be able to get past the idea that
we need a single tragic story to donate to. We need to donate because we see
facts like, “food shortages in Malawi are affecting more than three million
children. In Zambia, severe rainfall deficits have resulted in a 42% drop in
maize production from 2000.” And not just, “Rokia, a seven-year-old girl who
lives in Mali in Africa. [Since she] is desperately poor and faces a threat of
severe hunger, even starvation.” We all know this second story moves us much
more but that doesn’t make it a more meaningful donation.
I would like to finish off with what I found from the article,
as it elucidates my discussion. “Although [researchers] feel that charitable
donations might be more efficiently distributed among more desperate victims if
donors were not so emotional in making decisions to give money, the researchers
do not criticize people who wish to help when they feel sympathetic.” I wholeheartedly
agree with this and commend anyone who will donate their hard-earned money to a
cause. I just ask that you all are aware of this phenomenon and donate with BOTH heart and head, because that is
how we can make a difference and make the world a better place.
Thank you,
Jacob
Croes
Hello Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post as well as the article you provided. I agree that the discussion about head vs heart has been very prevalent in class and has been the topic of focus around much of what we discuss among ourselves.
I feel that emotion drives us to donate, if it did not, there would not be nearly the amount of donations made across the world. It could be argued that every gift of charity is made based on some emotion, it is in human nature to express these emotions. An organization who is fundraising for their mission may exemplify the 'sad faced child' to create incentive for people to donate. The larger of the emotion that a fundraiser can create, the more people will respond to that incentive. To quote the article you have provided, "people pay greater attention and have stronger emotional reactions to vivid rather than pallid information" (Stanford, 2007). I agree that more attention should be given when donating to the balance between head and heart, however given what is known about general psychology, as long as people respond to stronger emotions by giving charity, fundraisers will provide specific individual cases to market and boost funds.
To finish, I feel the discussion in class on this topic of head vs heart will most likely remain ongoing as for there are many different voices with different views on the issue. Fortunately, many of us have excellent debating skills which keep the topic fresh. But, I do hope that your blog post as well as the attached article may open up a new train of thought in class when we evaluate our finalist organizations and hopefully to an educated consensus.
Thank you.
Jack Ahrens
Hi Jacob,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all thank you for your interesting analyzation of the classic head and heart debate. I think it is important to recognize the head and heart debate, however I would like to observe the specific explanation you gave in a different way. I agree with you in your proved observation that individuals feel more confident and “effective” in giving to the benefit of a single individual over a group. However, I disagree on the reasoning behind why it is commonly done. When one makes a donation, an individual spends most of their efforts researching the organization’s mission. They read testimonials of those who have either been helped, supported or saved. The involvement of social media in the philanthropic sector furthers this effort even more. Many times, one’s decision ultimately transpires from the connection they develop with the cause or the person/ people whom inspired the organization’s creation.
Furthermore, I would disagree with the statement that a philanthropist is purely motivated by emotion . Even those who are “emotional when making decisions with money,” still use his or her own head (or logic) to reach a conclusion. An individual considering donating to a organization conducts his or her own research through speaking to others or through patrolling websites like Facebook and YouTube. The pursuit of research, the “head” motivation, although existent is misguided. Most individuals are unaware of the statistical significance a sum of money can have on a non-profit. Speaking from experience, without the ability to understand the meaning of administrative and program division of funding and activities, one can be placed in a category of uneducated philanthropy. Peter Singer speaks a lot about effective altruism, or the ability to do the most good, however I believe the message he gives to his audience in his lectures is useless without this foundational understanding of the finance of giving. In fact, Peter Singer gives a similar example. He says, that one may connect more with a blind man in need of a guide dog than a group of people suffering from Malaria. The problem he mentions, as you wrote above, is that giving to those with Malaria could statistically benefit more individuals, but emotionally most people will give to the Blind Dog Foundation due to their emotional connection to the matter (see attached video link).
I would also like to suggest an alternative statement to analyze the "head" and "heart" debate. A person who dedicates more time and effort into the research of aspects, within an organization, that are not in his comfort zone, is not only using his “head,” but is also using his “heart.” For example, even within the organization, staff or volunteer understanding of how their specific organization operates can allow for a better outcome in their performance (see attached article). Furthermore, the action of seeking information that can challenge one’s personal bias is effective in forming a realistic and wholehearted opinion of an organization. This remains true even if the organization being researched is small and may help less individuals than an alternative option. In my opinion, the pursuit of outside-the-box knowledge must be pursued even if it effects the quantity of time and/or money given.
For more information on Peter Singer’s Lecture:
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism
For more information on the effectiveness of intra-financial understanding:
https://www.nonprofitfinancefund.org/sites/default/files/paragraphs/file/download/ccer_final12-12.pdf
Well done,
Molly Singer
Hi Jacob,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion is certainly interesting; your argument provides a new and refreshing point of view on a topic which we have discussed all semester. However, it seems as if the the point you are attempting to convey-to donate with both head and heart-does not exactly match up with your argument. To me, personally, it seems as if all of your details point toward donating with more head than heart. For instance, you mentioned that humans tend to be drawn to emotion when it comes to making a philanthropic decision, and that we should "overcome this inclination to donate to one specific individual." It seems as if this statement is suggesting that we should completely overlook our emotional instincts and donate solely on what will have the greatest impact, whether it be in the present or in the future. I am not implying that this is a bad thing; it just seems to me that your point of view slightly shifted as you advanced your argument. However, I can agree in the sense that we must be wary of what I like to call "guilt advertisements." What I am referring to are any advertisements, mostly on television, which are meant to appeal to our sense of emotion and "guilt" us into donating to the organization. Some common examples of this are televised advertisements run by the ASPCA and St. Jude's Hospital. Both are great causes, but the method in which they are attempting to gain donations is wrong.
All in all, your message is one that is both solid and one which can appeal to many people. However, you must be wary of how you word your argument, as it seems like you are tipping the scale in favor of using more brain, which your initial argument did not imply.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post as I felt that it was a refreshing look at the heart vs. head discussion! I like that you said heart AND head can be used, instead of heart OR head. To me, it makes no sense to choose one, as situations change and humans are made to have both mindsets in different circumstances.
I was interested in seeing what the general consensus among those who devote their time to researching this kind of stuff was, and it seems that they are just as conflicted as our class is.
Some of them, like the source you gave, believe that using your heart should be the most dominant method. Others, believe that the way to be "wise" about choosing a charity is to use your head and analyze the charities effectiveness, using charity rating websites, and so on.(https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/giving/how-to-choose-a-charity-wisely.html) However, agree with me that that there is not a reason to choose one side. This article that I found discusses this in further detail (https://pj.news.chass.ncsu.edu/2015/12/21/in-doing-good-use-your-head-and-your-heart/). One important point it makes is that while using your heart might be beneficial to you in the sense that you gain satisfaction, but using your head can be far more beneficial to others. However, if you give up one, you lose a major part of philanthropy.
In the end, it says that "When giving to charity, following your heart feels good. Using your head and your heart feels even better". In other words, using logic AND emotion are the "right" way to give to charities, in my opinion.
I agree with your argument and enjoyed reading through it, nice job!