<< In fact, for every $1 in charitable giving, family income increased by $3.75. >>
This is another prime example of how to lie with statistics. I do not question the data themselves; doubtless those who gave $1 saw their incomes increase. However, the statement does not in any way establish causality or correlation. Perhaps those who were previously disinclined to give (or give much) suddenly realized that their circumstances had changed enormously (e.g., through a promotion on the job; a windfall on the stock market; a best-selling book; et al.). Knowing they would be that much better off in near future, they might then have felt more inclined to donate, and before long they had reaped the anticipated profits.
Bottom line: those who gave that $1 to a charitable cause may have generated good karma, but my "inner skeptic" remains unconvinced that they generated additional income as a result of their actions.
Its not a 'contract' as some philosophers have suggested, giving is a gladness of the heart, that keeps expanding. Thanks for this post.
<< In fact, for every $1 in charitable giving, family income increased by $3.75. >>
This is another prime example of how to lie with statistics. I do not question the data themselves; doubtless those who gave $1 saw their incomes increase. However, the statement does not in any way establish causality or correlation. Perhaps those who were previously disinclined to give (or give much) suddenly realized that their circumstances had changed enormously (e.g., through a promotion on the job; a windfall on the stock market; a best-selling book; et al.). Knowing they would be that much better off in near future, they might then have felt more inclined to donate, and before long they had reaped the anticipated profits.
Bottom line: those who gave that $1 to a charitable cause may have generated good karma, but my "inner skeptic" remains unconvinced that they generated additional income as a result of their actions.