Almost all of us want to make a difference in our lives. So we give to charity, recycle, volunteer, or cut down our carbon emissions. But are we getting it right In a world where ever more data is available, shouldn’t we be paying closer attention to the measurable effects of our altruistic actions Why, for example do we spend so much time and effort researching hotels and restaurants online while we rarely bother to investigate the effectiveness of the charities we donate to Are we more concerned with feeling good about ourselves than actually doing goodEnter William MacAskill, rising star philosopher at Oxford University and co-founder of the Effective Altruism movement. MacAskill’s new book 'Doing Good Better' has won acclaim from the likes of Peter Singer and Steven Pinker. Bill Gates, perhaps the world’s greatest philanthropist, has even described him as ‘a data nerd after my own heart.’ By crunching the numbers, MacAskill has shown that the standard ways of doing good often turn out to be less effective than we think. For example:- Giving to disaster relief is generally not the best way to help the poor.- Buying sweatshop produced goods generally reduces poverty.- Buying Fairtrade achieves little.- Typical 
charities do a hundred times less good than the best charities.We need to be more rational and savvy, MacAskill argues, when it comes to giving, and we need to be willing to accept that the best ways to do good are often counterintuitive: If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, he claims, rather than buy local produce you should donate to offsetting charities. If you want to reduce animal suffering, you should first stop eating chicken, not beef. When choosing your career, working for a non-profit isn’t necessarily the most altruistic choice: you can achieve more good over your lifetime by taking a highly-paid job and donating a chunk of your earnings to worthwhile causes. And in order to have the biggest impact, forget the maxim that cha