3 ms·

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 intere

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.

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.