5 ms·
To be blunt it shows how out of touch those involved are. Firstly they obviously had very little understanding of African / 3rd world culture, secondly they h
by Normal_gaussian 10y ago
To be blunt it shows how out of touch those involved are. Firstly they obviously had very little understanding of African / 3rd world culture, secondly they haven't considered what we do when people offer us free stuff.
Consider if somebody walked up to you and offered to pay you 6k/mo, you would be insane not to question it. And in a country where "free stuff" doesn't happen, where corruption and entrapment are common, you would also be insane to accept it.
Several of my friends have spent time in 3rd world countries. Most had the modern, egotistical, charity tour and I would suspect that their particular brand of experience is what the experiment used.
There are many well run charities and organisations operating in these countries which fully understand the problems of interacting with people there and would have seen this situation a mile off. Those that have spent time with these charities have rightly laughed at my naivety and false superiority when talking about problems those countries face.
The upshot is - this is not a surprising result, this could have been expected and appears not to have been due to the poor practice of the organisation running the experiment. They are jeopardising their own experiment and have dealt a blow to both its credibility and the credibility of other BI experiments which already suffer from accusations of low quality science and superiority complexes. This is the long term concern.
- Dylan16807 10y ago> you would also be insane Your hyperbole really bothers me here.
- Normal_gaussian 10y agoYes you are absolutely right. On rereading that I wish I had used more meaningful phrasing.
- whack 10y agoYou seem to have some axe to grind with GiveDirect. They've already run many Basic Income experiments in many parts of Africa, with great success. The fact that they are hitting some snags in a few counties, doesn't diminish them as an organization in any way.
- AJ007 10y agoAssuming that this really is an experiment, they are being asked to possibly be subjected to negative results. Researchers get to walk away when subjects of an experiment can carry the consequences of an experiment with them for the rest of their lives. It seems to me that it is a survival instinct to refuse new things you don't understand from untrusted sources. Damn right that I do. The fact that I have a Western education and many years of Western life experience may mean that the reasoning I come up with is quite a bit better than someone lacking that, but it doesn't over ride a desire to not radically disrupt my current lifestyle - for better or worse - on a blind bet.
- whack 10y agoWhat's your opinion on double-blind randomized medical trials where half the people are given placebos, and the other half are given treatments that have not been fully proven to be safe & effective.
- dilemma 10y agoHow their local representative responds is troubling: >They find it "hard to believe that a new organization like GiveDirectly would give roughly a year's salary in cash, unconditionally," Le writes. "As a result, many people have created their own narratives to explain the cash, including rumors that the money is associated with cults or devil worship." Le creates his own narrative about the locals as less educated and less civilized than himself - why else would they refuse his charity? It is clear that neither he nor his organization see the locals as equals.
- b6 10y agoIt seems like you quote Le and then give an unsubstantiated opinion that isn't even really related to the quote.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoWhat makes you think Le is imagining this?
- dilemma 10y agoWhere's the substance? What do you know that makes you think it's fact?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoThe phrasing does not imply it's a hypothetical, so why do you think it's not true? Do you believe they're lying?