Navigating Peer Pressure and Choice-Making in Group Donations

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Failures in Kindness, published by silentbob on March 27, 2024 on LessWrong.
There's a particular kind of widespread human behavior that is kind on the surface, but upon closer inspection reveals quite the opposite. This post is about four such patterns.
Computational Kindness
One of the most useful ideas I got out of Algorithms to Live By is that of computational kindness. I was quite surprised to only find a single mention of the term on lesswrong. So now there's two.
Computational kindness is the antidote to a common situation: imagine a friend from a different country is visiting and will stay with you for a while. You're exchanging some text messages beforehand in order to figure out how to spend your time together. You want to show your friend the city, and you want to be very accommodating and make sure all their preferences will be met.
So you simply ask them: "What do you want to do"? And maybe you add "I'm completely fine with anything!" to ensure you're really introducing no constraints whatsoever and you two can do exactly what your friend desires.
People often act like this, and they tend to assume they're doing the other person a favor by being so open and flexible. After all, this way the other person will have to make no trade-offs and can spend their time exactly as they please. The problem with this however is that it's computationally unkind: it offloads all the effort of coming up with ideas and making decisions to the other person.
So while it is kind on one level (respecting their object level preferences), it's unkind on another (effort, and respecting their possible meta level preferences about the planning process). And particularly if the friend's preferences about what exactly to do are not that strong, it now gives them a difficult and uncertain task for very little payoff.
So what's the computationally kind way of approaching this situation? You could name a (not too long) list of concrete proposals of how you could spend your time. If you know the person really well, you could suggest a full-fledged plan. If you don't know them that well, you could ask a few clarifying questions about their general preferences and then come up with a plan.
And on top of this (rather than instead of it) you can make sure to point out that you're open to anything and are happy to change plans in any way. This way, the other person can decide themselves how much cognitive effort to invest. They can just say "yes" to your proposal, or can suggest some adjustments, or even come up with an entirely new plan if they really want to go that far.
Responsibility Offloading[1]
A somewhat similar pattern to computational kindness is that of offloading responsibility. Imagine Alice and Bob, two friends who are just getting to know each other better, are hanging out at Alice's place. It's getting late, but they're having a fun time. Bob is unsure about whether and when Alice wants him to leave, but he's fine with staying much longer.
So he playfully says "By the way - feel free to throw me out any time! I've got tomorrow off, so am flexible, but just let me know when you've had enough of me".
Sometimes this is indeed a good move. Particularly when Bob knows that Alice is an assertive person who doesn't shy away from stating her preferences. But there are cases where this puts a big burden on Alice. Imagine Alice is generally rather insecure and indecisive. She now has to feel solely responsible for terminating the hangout. This is now something on her plate that she has to think about and decide, and communicate to Bob eventually in a non-offensive way.
There are Alices out there who would be rather stressed out by this, and who would prefer Bob to carry that responsibility, or to have the two of them figure it out together. And there are Bobs out there who have no ide...