I wonder how many times Dustin Curtis calls himself a superhero for every time this guy does.
Batman's Real Story
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: Batman's Real Story
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…
Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…
This might be true, but then what would the odds be for 50 years? 100? He may be literally saving a couple lives, but he's enriching and giving hope to a lot more, and they'll remember it. How do you quantify that effect on their life, and how it affects what they do? If 10 of them donate 25k for malaria because he helped them, then the balance is even. If one finds a cure because they're interested in helping people, then...?
Re: Batman's Real Story
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
"making sick children happy" This is a pretty reductionist view of his activities, IMO. Keeping cancer patients "happy," especially young children, is a huge part of their recovery. People like to speak in broad, fuzzy terms about the power of "smiles" and all that, but there's plenty of clinical research showing the significance of attitude on the workings of the body's response to disease. (And, even if the smiles…
> But who said this was his objective? Certainly not me. "I consider it $250,000 that he's spending on a cool hobby that he enjoys, that also makes kids happy, and that also brings publicity to doing-good-things" > He's now got symbolic value, as does the $250,000 Batmobile He already has symbolic value, and I doubt that the $250,000 Batmobile will have that much symbolic value over his current one. I agree with the…
I don't disagree with you about the incremental value of the additional +$250,000 spend on the new Batmobile. To me, that seems a little wasteful in service of whatever his goal happens to be (be it maximization, or otherwise). I won't begrudge him that decision; it's his money to spend, his passion, and a good cause to boot. But I could certainly think of better ways for him to spend that money in service of the same cause. (For instance, starting a "Batman Development Kit" of sorts, by creating a program for others to provide similar services across the country. Or, if the folks at DC/Warner Bros were smart, they might reach out to him to license the "Superfriends" collection and superhero roster gratis, for use in such a program).
Actually, I don't disagree with most of what you're saying here. But:
"remember that he didn't try to get this publicity. If he hadn't been pulled over, we wouldn't know about him."
Totally fair. But he provided symbolic value to his intended (albeit smaller) subset even before he went viral. And I would imagine that the indirect financial impact of that symbolism already exceeded the monetary value of his investment in said symbolism, even to the smaller (intended) target audience.
Of course, I realize that all of this discussion is somewhat academic unless we really understand what his motives were, and were not. To your point, it's a safe bet that he didn't sit down one day and try to quantitatively project his impact. :)
Re: Batman's Real Story
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a child i spend a christmas in a hospital and indeed they had a santa claus comming by and giving me a small present. Still spending christmas in the hospital suck. I hope your kid is alright.
He was diagnosed two weeks before Christmas (2007). The Make-A-Wish trip to visit Spider-man was the following July (they work quickly!), and last time he was healthy enough to be up and about. He passed away three week later, just before his fourth birthday. ... and that's why an article about Batman made me cry.
I am so sorry to hear that.
At least he got to see Spider-man.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#45Dear DC Comics / Warner Brothers:
Please reach out to this man, and offer him free and clear usage rights to "Batman," "Superman," and other pieces of your IP for charitable causes. In fact, do one better than that, and offer him funding to build out a national superheroes ("Superfriends"?) program for others to get involved.
If he's interested, of course. Maybe he wants to keep this small. But seems to me like there's a fantastic opportunity to lend Batman a hand here.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's impossible to find the "maximally efficient, effective ways", so you should do the interesting ones (i.e., not everyone is doing) that enrich you and make you happy, and have a measurable positive effect on others, like this guy does. With him being well-off, would it be more "maximally efficient" for him to do something else with his money? Maybe, but he wouldn't be making people happy with his black Lamb…
Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…
Note: I'm sort of meta-replying to all your posts in this thread here, so some of the bits I talk about come from other posts too.
It seems that your analytical process in this is only one-dimensional - maximize impact per dollar. This is reasonable, however it seems to ignore many possible definitions of "impact". Impact could be "lives saved" or "infections avoided" or any number of things that fit nicely in an optimization like you suggest. However, there are other forms of impact which could be considered:
* Instead of maximizing number of people impacted, there is a maximization on "best impact" per person.
* There are non-monetary forms of impact, in the form of giving people a feeling that someone really cares and respects them. A token donation, or some "bare minimum" bit of charity leaves many people feeling worse than they would without it, particularly when done poorly. Perhaps the optimization is on "make those who can get it, feel they really have someone on their side"
* And so on.
Further, as I mentioned, impact alone is not a bellwether dimension in how to figure this stuff out. There are considerations of:
* what does the giver feel comfortable giving (e.g. does the target cause ethical conflict w/in the giver)
* Does the giver have any non-monetary contributions as well?
* Does the giver want to be semi-anonymous?
* Does the giver want direct contact?
* What does the giver get as a result of this? It may sound "unaltruistic" or some other BS, but just handing over cash does not satisfy some people the way direct helping does.
Basically, my point is, while you have a decent metric, it is not the only one, nor is it worth discussing in isolation of the rest.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#47Although it may be seen as a little unusual, it is nice to see someone who has succeeded financially pay thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money in order to inspire, encourage, and strengthen the spirits of children who are in the hospital- many of which are seriously or even terminally ill. Mr. Robinson demonstrates the benevolence that should be seen as a responsibility of those who have attained financial success and does so in a very creative way. You can't question this persons heart to see to it that a child who is suffering is given a bright-spot in their day, and a highlight of their life by a visit from a super-hero- Batman.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…
Note: I'm sort of meta-replying to all your posts in this thread here, so some of the bits I talk about come from other posts too. It seems that your analytical process in this is only one-dimensional - maximize impact per dollar. This is reasonable, however it seems to ignore many possible definitions of "impact". Impact could be "lives saved" or "infections avoided" or any number of things that fit nicely in an opt…
> It seems that your analytical process in this is only one-dimensional - maximize impact per dollar. This is reasonable, however it seems to ignore many possible definitions of "impact".
As I said in another post,
> My main point was not "this future is better than that future", but "it is possible to decide which of these two futures is likely to be better".
Yes, I'm ignoring the question of which forms of impact give the most utility. That's something people have to decide for themselves.
I'm saying that it is possible to take two potential actions, look at the potential results, and say "I like the average future of this action more than the average future of that action", even though you don't have perfect knowledge of what the outcomes will be.
I'm saying that I don't think Batman did this.
And I'm saying (though I haven't made it clear) that he's still doing more good than most, in an absolute sense and probably also as a fraction of how much good he could be doing.
And he deserves heaps of praise for this, because I don't want to discourage future Batmans; but I do want future Batmans to do better than this Batman, not because this Batman isn't good but simply because better is possible.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not having perfect information is not an excuse to ignore the information you have. I don't know exactly how different the world would be if he donated $250,000 to, say, combating malaria instead of building a better Batmobile. But I would give at least 10:1 odds (if such a bet could be judged) that it would have more people alive in 20 years, for example. But saving many lives thousands of miles away doesn't feel as…
This might be true, but then what would the odds be for 50 years? 100? He may be literally saving a couple lives, but he's enriching and giving hope to a lot more, and they'll remember it. How do you quantify that effect on their life, and how it affects what they do? If 10 of them donate 25k for malaria because he helped them, then the balance is even. If one finds a cure because they're interested in helping people…
I think I would still give 2:1 odds for 50 years, and better than even odds for 100 years.
It's possible that what he's doing will have disproportionate knock-on effects. It's also possible (though I think slightly less likely) that the malaria thing would have disproportionate knock-on effects.
Also, I think "a couple of lives" is understating it. With $250,000, I would be surprised if you couldn't save 100 lives.
Re: Batman's Real Story
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might be a case of doing something rather than hyperanalyzing every possible situation and doing nothing. Might not be ideal, but at least he's doing something.
Absolutely. He's doing way better than "nothing". But you present a false dilemma; it is possible to do some analysis without entering a hyperanalysis spiral of inaction.
Exactly. But by continuing to debate this, we're perpetuating the doing nothing aspect. If you were really concerned about efficiency, you wouldn't be debating this on hacker news.
Compassion is not an algorithm to be optimized.