3 ms·

Are you saying that privileged people should refrain from publishing analyses about the state of the world and the progress which has been made? Perhaps you're

Are you saying that privileged people should refrain from publishing analyses about the state of the world and the progress which has been made? Perhaps you're saying that you personally can't separate what you know about the author from the position he is trying to present, and you may not be alone in that. There may be an interesting question here about the tension between, on the one hand, the benefit of anonymous publication to stop positive or negative associations with the author from affecting how their work is received, and on the other hand, the need for full disclosure when an author advocates for certain policies that they might gain undue benefit from.

maym86 8y ago
I'm not saying he's wrong by the measures he uses. I'm saying he has the privilege of being able to look at things from a perspective which people who are not so well off do not. I doubt many people dealing with specific issues would be helped or comforted by his thesis.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  Thanks for helping me understand your position better. You're right that people dealing with specific issues are unlikely to be (directly, immediately) helped by his analysis, although it's possible that if he identifies specific mechanisms that have improved outcomes for people, then societies could harness those mechanisms to improve the situation for even more people. I think your original comment suggested that because he was privileged, and because he had noticed that the situation for many people in the world is better than it has been before, that therefore he didn't care (or people like him might not care) that others still suffer from problems that we could prevent. I'm not sure if optimism reduces empathy, but I suppose that is something to consider.
  - maym86 8y ago
    I guess it's more of a PR issue than a criticism of his work. A Harvard Professor with a pretty decent life telling the world that everythings getting better when for a significant number of people that isn't what they are experiencing.

maym86 8y ago

I'm not saying he's wrong by the measures he uses. I'm saying he has the privilege of being able to look at things from a perspective which people who are not so well off do not. I doubt many people dealing with specific issues would be helped or comforted by his thesis.

dane-pgp 8y ago
Thanks for helping me understand your position better. You're right that people dealing with specific issues are unlikely to be (directly, immediately) helped by his analysis, although it's possible that if he identifies specific mechanisms that have improved outcomes for people, then societies could harness those mechanisms to improve the situation for even more people. I think your original comment suggested that because he was privileged, and because he had noticed that the situation for many people in the world is better than it has been before, that therefore he didn't care (or people like him might not care) that others still suffer from problems that we could prevent. I'm not sure if optimism reduces empathy, but I suppose that is something to consider.
- maym86 8y ago
  I guess it's more of a PR issue than a criticism of his work. A Harvard Professor with a pretty decent life telling the world that everythings getting better when for a significant number of people that isn't what they are experiencing.