Africans have (on average) low IQ scores and low conscientiousness. Therefore international aid is hopeless and we should stop it.
The low average IQ and the net harm done by the current model of international aid are more or less statements of fact. The rest of this line literally carries no message. What would be your preferred state for Africa?* What measures would you endorse to move towards that state?
- (“I truly don’t care much because I don’t consider Africans to be deserving of sympathy” is a legitimate answer, just a… boring one, and a one that can, in turn, mark your* utility function as worth much less consideration in the eyes of some people here—not necessarily being just me.)
My preferred state for Africa would be that all its inhabitants are happy, rich, etc. and live in utopia, of course. What do you think of me? I don’t have a clue how to achieve utopia in Africa or anywhere else and I don’t have any strong political opinions in general.
Edit: I just reread your post and it seems that I misunderstood your intentions when I read it the first time. I thought you wanted us to guess which beliefs Vladimir_M or folks with similar views might hold. (I therefore tried to think of views that are disturbing and at least somewhat reasonable) It follows that I don’t necessarily endorse the above mentioned views which I thought I said also in the original comment.
If the main problem with international aid is low IQ and conscientiousness (NB—not conceding this), then that is just evidence that foreign aid should focus first on things that affect this. IQ appears to negatively correlate with rates of parasitic infection, and also with exposure to mercury. Lead exposure increases impulsiveness, so I expect it correlates with low conscientiousness. So, wiping out parasitic diseases and metals abatement, among other things, should probably be high-priority forms of aid.
Edit: this information was communicated to me by a person working in a prenatal nutrition charity, which caused me to assume it was legit. Their own model of “fought against” might have been biased.
If the main problem with international aid is low IQ and conscientiousness (NB—not conceding this), then that is just evidence that foreign aid should focus first on things that affect this. IQ appears to negatively correlate with rates of parasitic infection, and also with exposure to mercury.
Lobbying for thermometer export ban = most efficient charity ever?
Now we should both relax. In retrospect it’s painfully obvious that I should’ve chosen the charitable interpretation* on the basis of your comment’s general impersonal nature and your history here. However, I was already polemizing for polemics’ sake elsewhere, so the monkey brain decided to shift fire onto a target of oppotunity too.
- I wholeheartedly agree that this is indeed bullshit* rationalists say, yeah.
I don’t think we should stop all international aid despite its low effectiveness. (e.g. the “1 laptop per child”-idea is pretty awesome)
Of course I agree in practice, but in a completely bullshit binary situation where it’s either all the current aid, both laptops and the substandard food etc, vs no aid at all, I’d say that no aid at all probably does less harm.
The low average IQ and the net harm done by the current model of international aid are more or less statements of fact.
Citation that accounts for economic and other environmental factors? (Talking about the IQ and/or conscientiousness thing). Not looking to debate, but unsure how much of this thread is genuine belief and how much is weird contrarian signalling, and wanting to know the gist of whatever actual arguments are being made.
Not touching THAT with a ten foot pole. Nuh-uh. I might be naive as hell, but not insane enough to go anywhere near it with fellow humans. As for the IQ thing, well, I’ll dig something up; I just assumed that, at least, it’s all over the “HBD-sphere” from what I’ve seen of their blogs, but I’m not willing to read it again soon, so I’d rather search in more respectable places. Or go ask Wallowinmaya.
The low average IQ and the net harm done by the current model of international aid are more or less statements of fact. The rest of this line literally carries no message. What would be your preferred state for Africa?* What measures would you endorse to move towards that state?
- (“I truly don’t care much because I don’t consider Africans to be deserving of sympathy” is a legitimate answer, just a… boring one, and a one that can, in turn, mark your* utility function as worth much less consideration in the eyes of some people here—not necessarily being just me.)
My preferred state for Africa would be that all its inhabitants are happy, rich, etc. and live in utopia, of course. What do you think of me? I don’t have a clue how to achieve utopia in Africa or anywhere else and I don’t have any strong political opinions in general.
Edit: I just reread your post and it seems that I misunderstood your intentions when I read it the first time. I thought you wanted us to guess which beliefs Vladimir_M or folks with similar views might hold. (I therefore tried to think of views that are disturbing and at least somewhat reasonable) It follows that I don’t necessarily endorse the above mentioned views which I thought I said also in the original comment.
If the main problem with international aid is low IQ and conscientiousness (NB—not conceding this), then that is just evidence that foreign aid should focus first on things that affect this. IQ appears to negatively correlate with rates of parasitic infection, and also with exposure to mercury. Lead exposure increases impulsiveness, so I expect it correlates with low conscientiousness. So, wiping out parasitic diseases and metals abatement, among other things, should probably be high-priority forms of aid.
prenatal nutrition is huge too but AFAIK has been actively fought against precisely because it implies that the problem is low-IQ which is a no-no.
I haven’t heard that before, any reference?
Unable to find one, it could well be untrue.
Edit: this information was communicated to me by a person working in a prenatal nutrition charity, which caused me to assume it was legit. Their own model of “fought against” might have been biased.
Lobbying for thermometer export ban = most efficient charity ever?
I agree. It would be great if international aid organizations adopted the methods of Givewell or GWWC.
Now we should both relax. In retrospect it’s painfully obvious that I should’ve chosen the charitable interpretation* on the basis of your comment’s general impersonal nature and your history here. However, I was already polemizing for polemics’ sake elsewhere, so the monkey brain decided to shift fire onto a target of oppotunity too.
- I wholeheartedly agree that this is indeed bullshit* rationalists say, yeah.
Of course I agree in practice, but in a completely bullshit binary situation where it’s either all the current aid, both laptops and the substandard food etc, vs no aid at all, I’d say that no aid at all probably does less harm.
No problem, I’m the one to blame since I misread your post. In retrospect I probably shouldn’t have read the post on melatonin :-)
Citation that accounts for economic and other environmental factors? (Talking about the IQ and/or conscientiousness thing). Not looking to debate, but unsure how much of this thread is genuine belief and how much is weird contrarian signalling, and wanting to know the gist of whatever actual arguments are being made.
Not touching THAT with a ten foot pole. Nuh-uh. I might be naive as hell, but not insane enough to go anywhere near it with fellow humans. As for the IQ thing, well, I’ll dig something up; I just assumed that, at least, it’s all over the “HBD-sphere” from what I’ve seen of their blogs, but I’m not willing to read it again soon, so I’d rather search in more respectable places. Or go ask Wallowinmaya.