6 ms·

This article is pessimistic at best, and downright wrong at worst. Why can't a 22 yr. old college graduate from Uganda be the one to finally break the logjam i

by Laaw 11y ago

This article is pessimistic at best, and downright wrong at worst. Why can't a 22 yr. old college graduate from Uganda be the one to finally break the logjam in the US about gun control? Maybe different perspectives will find solutions to problems we haven't come up with. The Ugandan man/woman might get hired by one of those "nonprofit groups" and actually solve this problem once and for all. Who knows? Why can't a 22 yr. old college graduate from the US be the one to finally figure out how to get cheap water to remote villages in Uganda? Why must it be someone from Uganda? A then-40 something "college dropout" (we all know how irrelevant that is) from the US (Bill Gates) went to Africa and started working on the malaria problem. Do you think he did it all by himself? A bunch of 22 yr. old college grads helped him, along with a lot of others. Is this satire? It might be satire, because of how reductionist this article actually is, by claiming the problem is "simply" intractable.

stinkytaco 11y ago
Though I don't think it's well argued, I agree with the general principle: problems are generally much more complex than they seem from the outside. It's interesting that you mention gun control, because if I talk to my European relatives their answer is "make them illegal" as if Americans are too stupid to work this out on their own. The fact that you even say "solution" to something not everyone agrees is even a problem is an example of how difficult policy is to make in the US. I deal in my day job with a large homeless population and I can tell you the vast majority of policy discussions I have rotate around "what is the problem?" before we even begin to discuss solutions. And that's not bringing in the people themselves, who may not see the situation as a problem at all. So I agree that the article is a bit provincial, but I also agree that a very in depth understanding on issues and their complexity is often required, and very difficult to achieve from the outside. Incidentally, this is why, at least in my experience, federal programs are so inefficient compared to state programs which are, in turn inefficient compared to local ones. This isn't to say that they don't all have their place, especially when it comes to enforcing consistent standards in a large geographical region, but it's definitely the people closest to an issue that have the biggest impact.
- Laaw 11y ago
  I find this thought process (the one in the article) to not be very accepting of "failure". So what if the Ugandan kid comes over and thinks he can change the way the US thinks of guns? It's not like he's going to have an impact unless he's right, so bring him and everyone else on! I agree that problems are way more complex, in general, then they tend to first appear, but that naivety is sometimes good, because it's insulating against the thinking that created the problem. Maybe the Ugandan kid will learn a great deal about the US and its gun situation, but still maintain that "outsider looking in" viewpoint, and that's unique, in a good way.
  - stinkytaco 11y ago
    Sure, in the case of gun control he can likely do no harm, so more power to him. But this is not always the case. The list of problems caused by well meaning outsiders trying to solve a problem is too long to list. Pouring money into corrupt dictatorships who then use those funds to enrich themselves is a time honored solution (see: IMF). Or even better, there's a bad guy in this country? Let's give them some freedom, that should work out (see: Vietnam)! Or maybe we ought to limit ourselves to humanitarian aid? If that's the case we can set up camps that will then house and abet one side of a conflict (see: Rwandan genocide). There is a place for outside groups to try and effect change, but that needs to be carefully balanced against understanding of complex problems. Lots of money and resources is not always a good thing and can even cause harm when not used in the right way.
    - Laaw 11y ago
      Sure, but that's true as with anything else in the world. I don't think "Don't bother" is a message that this article should be conveying to the folks who might be inclined to try. If this article were more about what you're saying, and less negative, I might not have made my comments.
- blowski 11y ago
  "The solution for drought in Africa is to give them more water." I can't remember where I first heard this, but it made the point very clearly.
caseysoftware 11y ago
The thesis is not "22yo's can't solve problems!" The thesis is that when you look at someone else's problem - someone that you don't know, understand, know their culture, see the situation leading into it, or the ripples coming after - that it looks simpler and more obvious than it really is. It's a variation of the "grass is always greener" mindset. All of those sticky, messy details are hidden away. Some of them because they're cultural things the participants take for granted while others are glossed over because they distract from the story being told. If you want to solve problems, great! Do it! But make sure you understand the problem before you offer your solution.
- Laaw 11y ago
  I didn't get that out of this article. I agree with what you've written, but I got an implication of "don't bother" from the article, which I think is wrong.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    I don't believe that was the author's intention. Check out the sections on AIDWATCH's flowchart, the paragraph about Molly Melching, and the closing paragraph.
    - Laaw 11y ago
      Those paragraphs seem to me to basically say, "Don't bother if you're not going to spend the rest of your life/a very long time here", which I think is effectively saying "don't bother at all" to most folks. I want the Ugandan to come to the US and try to solve gun control before he's 30. He'll fail if his idea sucks, but I want him to come try.
      - blowski 11y ago
        What if the Ugandan makes things worse for people who are already in a difficult situation? What if lots of Ugandans turn up with lots of solutions that all make things a lot worse? I think this is what the OP is suggesting is happening with young western idealists - their naive solutions are making the situation worse.
wfo 11y ago
As far as I could tell the article was about "The Reductive Seduction of Other People’s Problems" since that was its title i.e. how much easier a problem looks from the outside than from the inside and how it's naive and arrogant to think that you, after learning about something for a year can go somewhere and /quickly and easily/ fix problems that have escaped solutions for decades, even hundreds of years with your western civilization/education/spirituality/tech. It's a kind of hubris supported by the implicit assumption that the people in the other countries are wrong, stupid, barbaric, incompetent, etc. It's a trivial and simple point to make but not an incorrect one. Have you never heard someone read news about some violence in the third world and say "gee gosh, why don't they just stop killing each other"? Its entire thesis is that the kid in the US thinks prison reform is hard because she understands the culture, the problem a little better. She thinks solving FGM in Africa is easy because "they should just stop mutilating each other". There's a tendency to run away from problems in our country because you don't realize that the problems in other countries are no easier once you get on the ground.
- Laaw 11y ago
  But that's my point; maybe prison reform isn't actually all that hard, and only appears that way from an insider's perspective. I'm refuting the article's pessimism by explaining the concept that innovative ideas often come from the perspective of an outsider who isn't thinking like the folks who created the problem think. It's a significant part of start-up culture, isn't it, the theory of disruption? This article resonates because of how easy it is to be pessimistic and critical of new ideas, and everyone here is an expert at it.
  - wfo 11y ago
    No, prison reform is that hard. Same with FGM in Africa. The key component of these issues is that they are cultural problems. Entire cultures of people do not see them as problems at all or want them to be fixed. To fix them quickly you need to restructure and redirect an entire culture in the blink of an eye. Which is something brilliant people have been trying and failing to do for thousands of years of human history. You've highlighted quite well why startup culture has never successfully solved a sociopolitical problem; startups are a flash in the pan and real issues take longer than its shelf life to solve. I'm all for optimism but thinking you're going to solve a real social problem to, say, 'disrupt homelessness' by writing an iPhone app is the height of tech-infused naive narcissism. Using tools which are wholly unsuited to the job and expecting quick and easy solutions without years of hard work when the problems you are facing are genuinely difficult is not optimism. Nothing about the article was pessimistic. Rather it is optimistic. It is a gentle suggestion to people who want to fix the world that as tempting as it is to look far away, where the issues are clear and crisp from a distance, you should consider starting closer to home, because you'll find the problems are equally as difficult but you don't have to learn an entirely new language and mode of existence before you begin.

by Laaw 11y ago

stinkytaco 11y ago

Though I don't think it's well argued, I agree with the general principle: problems are generally much more complex than they seem from the outside. It's interesting that you mention gun control, because if I talk to my European relatives their answer is "make them illegal" as if Americans are too stupid to work this out on their own. The fact that you even say "solution" to something not everyone agrees is even a problem is an example of how difficult policy is to make in the US. I deal in my day job with a large homeless population and I can tell you the vast majority of policy discussions I have rotate around "what is the problem?" before we even begin to discuss solutions. And that's not bringing in the people themselves, who may not see the situation as a problem at all. So I agree that the article is a bit provincial, but I also agree that a very in depth understanding on issues and their complexity is often required, and very difficult to achieve from the outside. Incidentally, this is why, at least in my experience, federal programs are so inefficient compared to state programs which are, in turn inefficient compared to local ones. This isn't to say that they don't all have their place, especially when it comes to enforcing consistent standards in a large geographical region, but it's definitely the people closest to an issue that have the biggest impact.

Laaw 11y ago
I find this thought process (the one in the article) to not be very accepting of "failure". So what if the Ugandan kid comes over and thinks he can change the way the US thinks of guns? It's not like he's going to have an impact unless he's right, so bring him and everyone else on! I agree that problems are way more complex, in general, then they tend to first appear, but that naivety is sometimes good, because it's insulating against the thinking that created the problem. Maybe the Ugandan kid will learn a great deal about the US and its gun situation, but still maintain that "outsider looking in" viewpoint, and that's unique, in a good way.
- stinkytaco 11y ago
  Sure, in the case of gun control he can likely do no harm, so more power to him. But this is not always the case. The list of problems caused by well meaning outsiders trying to solve a problem is too long to list. Pouring money into corrupt dictatorships who then use those funds to enrich themselves is a time honored solution (see: IMF). Or even better, there's a bad guy in this country? Let's give them some freedom, that should work out (see: Vietnam)! Or maybe we ought to limit ourselves to humanitarian aid? If that's the case we can set up camps that will then house and abet one side of a conflict (see: Rwandan genocide). There is a place for outside groups to try and effect change, but that needs to be carefully balanced against understanding of complex problems. Lots of money and resources is not always a good thing and can even cause harm when not used in the right way.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    Sure, but that's true as with anything else in the world. I don't think "Don't bother" is a message that this article should be conveying to the folks who might be inclined to try. If this article were more about what you're saying, and less negative, I might not have made my comments.
blowski 11y ago
"The solution for drought in Africa is to give them more water." I can't remember where I first heard this, but it made the point very clearly.

caseysoftware 11y ago

The thesis is not "22yo's can't solve problems!" The thesis is that when you look at someone else's problem - someone that you don't know, understand, know their culture, see the situation leading into it, or the ripples coming after - that it looks simpler and more obvious than it really is. It's a variation of the "grass is always greener" mindset. All of those sticky, messy details are hidden away. Some of them because they're cultural things the participants take for granted while others are glossed over because they distract from the story being told. If you want to solve problems, great! Do it! But make sure you understand the problem before you offer your solution.

Laaw 11y ago
I didn't get that out of this article. I agree with what you've written, but I got an implication of "don't bother" from the article, which I think is wrong.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  I don't believe that was the author's intention. Check out the sections on AIDWATCH's flowchart, the paragraph about Molly Melching, and the closing paragraph.
  - Laaw 11y ago
    Those paragraphs seem to me to basically say, "Don't bother if you're not going to spend the rest of your life/a very long time here", which I think is effectively saying "don't bother at all" to most folks. I want the Ugandan to come to the US and try to solve gun control before he's 30. He'll fail if his idea sucks, but I want him to come try.
    - blowski 11y ago
      What if the Ugandan makes things worse for people who are already in a difficult situation? What if lots of Ugandans turn up with lots of solutions that all make things a lot worse? I think this is what the OP is suggesting is happening with young western idealists - their naive solutions are making the situation worse.

wfo 11y ago

As far as I could tell the article was about "The Reductive Seduction of Other People’s Problems" since that was its title i.e. how much easier a problem looks from the outside than from the inside and how it's naive and arrogant to think that you, after learning about something for a year can go somewhere and /quickly and easily/ fix problems that have escaped solutions for decades, even hundreds of years with your western civilization/education/spirituality/tech. It's a kind of hubris supported by the implicit assumption that the people in the other countries are wrong, stupid, barbaric, incompetent, etc. It's a trivial and simple point to make but not an incorrect one. Have you never heard someone read news about some violence in the third world and say "gee gosh, why don't they just stop killing each other"? Its entire thesis is that the kid in the US thinks prison reform is hard because she understands the culture, the problem a little better. She thinks solving FGM in Africa is easy because "they should just stop mutilating each other". There's a tendency to run away from problems in our country because you don't realize that the problems in other countries are no easier once you get on the ground.

Laaw 11y ago
But that's my point; maybe prison reform isn't actually all that hard, and only appears that way from an insider's perspective. I'm refuting the article's pessimism by explaining the concept that innovative ideas often come from the perspective of an outsider who isn't thinking like the folks who created the problem think. It's a significant part of start-up culture, isn't it, the theory of disruption? This article resonates because of how easy it is to be pessimistic and critical of new ideas, and everyone here is an expert at it.
- wfo 11y ago
  No, prison reform is that hard. Same with FGM in Africa. The key component of these issues is that they are cultural problems. Entire cultures of people do not see them as problems at all or want them to be fixed. To fix them quickly you need to restructure and redirect an entire culture in the blink of an eye. Which is something brilliant people have been trying and failing to do for thousands of years of human history. You've highlighted quite well why startup culture has never successfully solved a sociopolitical problem; startups are a flash in the pan and real issues take longer than its shelf life to solve. I'm all for optimism but thinking you're going to solve a real social problem to, say, 'disrupt homelessness' by writing an iPhone app is the height of tech-infused naive narcissism. Using tools which are wholly unsuited to the job and expecting quick and easy solutions without years of hard work when the problems you are facing are genuinely difficult is not optimism. Nothing about the article was pessimistic. Rather it is optimistic. It is a gentle suggestion to people who want to fix the world that as tempting as it is to look far away, where the issues are clear and crisp from a distance, you should consider starting closer to home, because you'll find the problems are equally as difficult but you don't have to learn an entirely new language and mode of existence before you begin.