Charitable giving expert Josh Greene joins Spencer Greenberg to discuss effectively encouraging people to give more, the natural equals good fallacy, the role of pure altruism in evolutionary history, reducing political animosity through interdependence, understanding the psychology of conflict and cooperation, and using Giving Multiplier to maximize donations.
Read more
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Incentivizing charitable giving by allowing people to split their donations between personal causes and highly effective charities can raise substantial amounts of money for impactful causes.
Engaging people from opposing political sides in cooperative activities, such as a quiz game, can reduce animosity and build respect and trust, fostering a healthier democracy and enabling cooperation on shared societal goals.
Understanding the psychology behind cooperation, such as the importance of reciprocity and respect, can help bridge gaps and promote a more harmonious society.
Deep dives
Improving Charitable Giving
The podcast episode discusses an innovative approach to incentivizing charitable giving. The hosts explore the Giving Multiplier project, which encourages people to split their donations between their favorite charity and a highly effective charity recommended by experts. By offering a 50/50 split option and incentivizing donations with additional matching funds, the project has successfully raised millions of dollars for effective charities. The psychological insights behind the project show that people feel a sense of fulfillment by supporting causes they care about personally, while also making a smart and impactful choice by donating to highly effective charities.
Reducing Political Animosity
The podcast delves into the issue of political animosity and the importance of bridging the divide between Republicans and Democrats. The hosts present a quiz game that encourages individuals from both sides to play as partners, fostering interdependence and cooperation. Through the game, participants learn from each other, challenge their own beliefs, and build respect and trust. The game has shown promising results in reducing animosity, with effects lasting weeks or even months. By promoting respectful engagement across political lines, this approach aims to create a healthier democracy and enable cooperation on shared societal goals.
Understanding Altruism and Cooperation
The podcast episode explores the concepts of altruism and cooperation from an evolutionary and psychological perspective. It emphasizes that humans have evolved to prioritize cooperation within their tribes and communities, but pure altruism towards distant strangers is a newer idea and goes against our natural instincts. However, with our capacity for critical thinking, we can extend our cooperative tendencies to include a more global perspective and support effective causes that benefit those in need. By understanding the psychological factors involved in cooperation, such as reciprocity, respect, and interdependence, we can work towards bridging gaps and fostering a more harmonious society.
Psychology and Conflict Resolution
When it comes to conflict resolution, the podcast episode highlights the importance of finding common ground and building trust. It suggests that exposure to different perspectives and engaging in cooperative activities, such as the quiz game mentioned, can help reduce animosity and facilitate understanding between opposing groups. By focusing on shared goals and working together to solve common problems, conflicts can be approached in a more constructive manner. The episode acknowledges the complexity of conflicts like the Israel-Palestine issue, but emphasizes the potential of psychological insights in promoting long-term reconciliation and fostering healthier relationships between groups.
Promoting cooperation and reducing animosity through accurate perceptions
The podcast highlights a study on outgroup metapreceptions, which examines people's perceptions of what the other side thinks of them. The study reveals that individuals often have negative perceptions about outgroups, but these perceptions are frequently exaggerated. By providing individuals with more accurate information about how the other side views them, animosity can be softened. This finding underscores the importance of cooperation, as people need to believe that the other party doesn't harbor strong hostility in order to be willing to work together.
Moral emotions, conflicts, and the need for a better moral philosophy
The podcast delves into the relationship between moral emotions and conflicts, using the Israel-Palestine conflict as an example. The speaker argues that moral emotions play a crucial role in human conflict, as they drive individuals' behaviors and decisions. However, conflicts arising from differing moral intuitions cannot be resolved solely by appealing to emotions, as competing intuitions fuel the discord. The speaker advocates for a more psychologically informed version of consequentialism or utilitarianism, which he refers to as deep pragmatism. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of creating experiences that can change people's attitudes and higher-order moral beliefs to effectively address conflicts.
How can people be encouraged in ways that are more natural and less manipulative to increase the amounts they give to charities? Why are arguments based on the effectiveness of charitable organizations less compelling to most people than we'd like for them to be? What percentages of a social group should be "doves", "hawks", "eagles", or something else? To what extent should our knowledge about our evolutionary history shape our values? Why are children more likely than adults to engage in prosocial behaviors towards strangers? Aside from anecdotal evidence, how do we know that political polarization in the US has been increasing over the last few decades? How can bridges of respect and trust be built between warring political tribes? How can people even begin to undertake the project of building bridges across political divides if they have no interest in understanding or engaging with the other side — especially if they believe that the other side is completely deranged, evil, or otherwise unfit to govern at any level? What is "deep pragmatism"? What might a "psychologically-informed" version of utilitarianism look like?
Josh Greene is Professor of Psychology and a member of the Center for Brain Science faculty at Harvard University. Much of his research has focused on the psychology and neuroscience of moral judgment, examining the interplay between emotion and reason in moral dilemmas. His more recent work studies critical features of individual and collective intelligence. His current neuroscientific research examines how the brain combines concepts to form thoughts and how thoughts are manipulated in reasoning and imagination. His current behavioral research examines strategies for improving social decision-making and alleviating intergroup conflict. He is also the author of Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. Learn more about him at his website, joshua-greene.net.
