Should I split my donation between the funds rather than donate only to the one I think is best in expectation?

When thinking about how to donate most effectively there is some discussion about whether you should donate only to the one thing that you think on balance will do the most good or whether you should split your donation. When it comes to splitting between charities Effective Altruism Funds is attempting to solve this dilemma by pooling people's money and having an expert decide but what about choosing whether to donate 100% of your money to one cause area or split it across our funds?

On the one hand, if you think one cause area has the highest expected value (the amount of good that can be achieved multiplied by the probability of achieving that good) then there are strong arguments for only donating to that one area because you think that is where the highest positive impact can be achieved. This article goes into greater depth on expected value and why it's important.

On the other hand, as this article explains it could be that different cause areas act as multipliers on each other meaning it is important to maximise all areas. For example, it could be important to both ensure the continuation of our species by focusing on the Long-Term Future but also to make sure that future is favourable by improving the way we treat animals.

As this post points out it may be important to donate at least a small amount to all the different cause areas as a way to reduce the biases we have to different cause areas perhaps because we identify with particular communities or identities (such as being vegan) or don't want to lose status associated with changing our minds.

How you think about these different arguments may affect how (and if) you split your donations between the different cause areas but it is an important area to think about before you donate.