5 ms·

I'm speculating and have no evidence, but my thinking is that offering money with no strings attached is a threat to those that offer money (or other help) with

by rusanu 10y ago

I'm speculating and have no evidence, but my thinking is that offering money with no strings attached is a threat to those that offer money (or other help) with strings attached. Spreading rumors would be a defense strategy to protect those interests.

fsiefken 10y ago
Hi Rusanu, some people or subcultures have a higher propensity to magical thinking. In Kenya for example all kinds of conspiracy theories exist about the origin of AIDS. There doesn't need to be an extra agency that intentionally spreads disinformation to explain this phenomenon. That there are agencies involved in this type of manipulations in general is a fact though, not sure who the parties would be that are threatened by this. NGO's would welcome reliable results I think Also read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-create-chicagos-street-gangs-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-cr...
- PostOnce 10y ago
  Counterpoint: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor, quote: “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” This is not the only thing the government did, or continues to do, to destroy various peoples' faith in it.
  - awinder 10y ago
    Not to mention direct action against leaders like MLK, which, I don't think, was done under the cover of drugs
  - arkades 10y ago
    As I understand it, this "quote" was provided second-hand decades after it happened, and only after Ehrlichman was no longer in a position to deny its accuracy (read: dead and in the ground). Harpers is probably one of the few places where that sort of thing that could get past editorial scrutiny. (Or, maybe not, maybe I'm just being insufficiently cynical.) And yet between here and reddit, I think I see this pop up every other week.
    - PostOnce 10y ago
      Even if it turns out to be untrue, what does it say that it sounds so plausible/believable, so many people are quoting it? Either way, it seems people don't have a lot of faith in the government, and there are plausible examples of things the government has done to put itself in this situation. Another example from the same era, gulf of tonkin incident. It doesn't matter what it costs the people at the bottom if the people at the top get what they want, that's the impression I think many of us are left with.
      - tdb7893 10y ago
        To play devil's advocate the thing that could make it sound so plausible is confirmation bias.
      - internaut 10y ago
        > what does it say that it sounds so plausible/believable, so many people are quoting it? I think you know the answer to this. There's lots of things I'd like to believe, but don't because they are not true. Outside of HN and other geek outposts, a great many people, maybe most have a flaky relationship to the truth on almost everything. We're not immune to that of course but I at least know with fellow geeks they will admit the possibility of being wrong instead of relying exclusively on waving their hands and feels. Geeks will change minds when presented with data. Often slowly and grudgingly, but still they are able to do it, it is in them, their identity is looser. One thing I suspect most of us have very wrong about people is that being 'scientific' is strongly connected to personality, and so appeals to logic and reason are simply not going to resound with everybody in totality. It is not meaningful to them. The World is my anecdotal evidence for that.
- calibraxis 10y ago
  While magicial thinking is pretty universal, it's true that the US (where GiveDirectly comes from) has ridiculous amounts of it. For example, 42% believe "God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago." (http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-h...) Even those who aren't climate change deniers still seem committed to running us off the cliff with climate change. Perhaps because they believe in an "invisible hand" of Providence. The posted article is an example. They could've simply quoted what at least one Kenyan thought about it. Anyone operating within a culture which values rationality would've done so. But not these people.
dilemma 10y ago
What makes you think there's no strings attached in this case? For one, these Kenyans are being experimented on.
- lagadu 10y ago
  I believe he means that there's no expectation of them doing something in return for that money at a later point in time.
- sksnxjis 10y ago
  GiveDirectly is an extremely transparent organization and there's nothing secret about the experience of people who have taken money from them in the past. For them to suddenly start demanding organs or labor or votes or whatever it is you are worried about would be way out of character and not in the best interests of the continued existence of the organization. This behavior would not by tolerated by GiveDirectly's unusually high-minded and picky donors.
tim333 10y ago
My experiences of accepting free stuff is it is often followed by a salesperson trying to sell you on an iffy course, timeshare or a religion. Being wary may not be totally irrational especially given that many of the Kenyans will not have been following the basic income debate and so not know what it's about.

by rusanu 10y ago

fsiefken 10y ago

Hi Rusanu, some people or subcultures have a higher propensity to magical thinking. In Kenya for example all kinds of conspiracy theories exist about the origin of AIDS. There doesn't need to be an extra agency that intentionally spreads disinformation to explain this phenomenon. That there are agencies involved in this type of manipulations in general is a fact though, not sure who the parties would be that are threatened by this. NGO's would welcome reliable results I think Also read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-create-chicagos-street-gangs-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427625/no-fbi-didnt-cr...

PostOnce 10y ago
Counterpoint: https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ Nixon's Chief Domestic Advisor, quote: “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” This is not the only thing the government did, or continues to do, to destroy various peoples' faith in it.
- awinder 10y ago
  Not to mention direct action against leaders like MLK, which, I don't think, was done under the cover of drugs
- arkades 10y ago
  As I understand it, this "quote" was provided second-hand decades after it happened, and only after Ehrlichman was no longer in a position to deny its accuracy (read: dead and in the ground). Harpers is probably one of the few places where that sort of thing that could get past editorial scrutiny. (Or, maybe not, maybe I'm just being insufficiently cynical.) And yet between here and reddit, I think I see this pop up every other week.
  - PostOnce 10y ago
    Even if it turns out to be untrue, what does it say that it sounds so plausible/believable, so many people are quoting it? Either way, it seems people don't have a lot of faith in the government, and there are plausible examples of things the government has done to put itself in this situation. Another example from the same era, gulf of tonkin incident. It doesn't matter what it costs the people at the bottom if the people at the top get what they want, that's the impression I think many of us are left with.
    - tdb7893 10y ago
      To play devil's advocate the thing that could make it sound so plausible is confirmation bias.
    - internaut 10y ago
      > what does it say that it sounds so plausible/believable, so many people are quoting it? I think you know the answer to this. There's lots of things I'd like to believe, but don't because they are not true. Outside of HN and other geek outposts, a great many people, maybe most have a flaky relationship to the truth on almost everything. We're not immune to that of course but I at least know with fellow geeks they will admit the possibility of being wrong instead of relying exclusively on waving their hands and feels. Geeks will change minds when presented with data. Often slowly and grudgingly, but still they are able to do it, it is in them, their identity is looser. One thing I suspect most of us have very wrong about people is that being 'scientific' is strongly connected to personality, and so appeals to logic and reason are simply not going to resound with everybody in totality. It is not meaningful to them. The World is my anecdotal evidence for that.
calibraxis 10y ago
While magicial thinking is pretty universal, it's true that the US (where GiveDirectly comes from) has ridiculous amounts of it. For example, 42% believe "God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago." (http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-h...) Even those who aren't climate change deniers still seem committed to running us off the cliff with climate change. Perhaps because they believe in an "invisible hand" of Providence. The posted article is an example. They could've simply quoted what at least one Kenyan thought about it. Anyone operating within a culture which values rationality would've done so. But not these people.

dilemma 10y ago

What makes you think there's no strings attached in this case? For one, these Kenyans are being experimented on.

lagadu 10y ago
I believe he means that there's no expectation of them doing something in return for that money at a later point in time.
sksnxjis 10y ago
GiveDirectly is an extremely transparent organization and there's nothing secret about the experience of people who have taken money from them in the past. For them to suddenly start demanding organs or labor or votes or whatever it is you are worried about would be way out of character and not in the best interests of the continued existence of the organization. This behavior would not by tolerated by GiveDirectly's unusually high-minded and picky donors.

tim333 10y ago

My experiences of accepting free stuff is it is often followed by a salesperson trying to sell you on an iffy course, timeshare or a religion. Being wary may not be totally irrational especially given that many of the Kenyans will not have been following the basic income debate and so not know what it's about.