I find it unlikely that people just can’t say no to foreign aid. People seem very good at justifying not donating to charity. I think the real problem is that people don’t do enough research on the effects of what they do.
Do they get offended, or do they just not believe you, and perhaps rationalize heavily? Did we, perhaps, frame the issue in the most sensational way possible, i.e. “aid to Africa is actively harmful” as a generalization, rather than “aid in the form of free food and well-drilling and money to dictatorships has been shown to be harmful, there are other much better things we should be doing to help Africa?”
If neither side actually benefits from communication breaking down, a communication breakdown usually means both sides made mistakes. This is one of Eliezer’s posts I guess I disagree with most.
I said (various things to the effect of) “free food is harmful because it ruins local farmers”. The more nerdy just disbelieve, but most people get offended.
My anecdotal evidence is that I wasn’t offended, I just didn’t believe it. The issue seemed to be framed incorrectly—discussion on this issue seemed to be saying “aid doesn’t work; just don’t bother” rather than “hey you want to do the aid thing? Here’s how to do it properly”.
Accepting that conventional wisdom is wrong was really hard for me. I think if you’re asking people to do that, you need to go in gently and show people that you’re on their side.
I find it unlikely that people just can’t say no to foreign aid. People seem very good at justifying not donating to charity. I think the real problem is that people don’t do enough research on the effects of what they do.
No, they get offended when you tell them it doesn’t help.
Do they get offended, or do they just not believe you, and perhaps rationalize heavily? Did we, perhaps, frame the issue in the most sensational way possible, i.e. “aid to Africa is actively harmful” as a generalization, rather than “aid in the form of free food and well-drilling and money to dictatorships has been shown to be harmful, there are other much better things we should be doing to help Africa?”
If neither side actually benefits from communication breaking down, a communication breakdown usually means both sides made mistakes. This is one of Eliezer’s posts I guess I disagree with most.
I said (various things to the effect of) “free food is harmful because it ruins local farmers”. The more nerdy just disbelieve, but most people get offended.
If meat eating were encouraged and increased, wouldn’t that drive food prices back up?
My anecdotal evidence is that I wasn’t offended, I just didn’t believe it. The issue seemed to be framed incorrectly—discussion on this issue seemed to be saying “aid doesn’t work; just don’t bother” rather than “hey you want to do the aid thing? Here’s how to do it properly”.
Accepting that conventional wisdom is wrong was really hard for me. I think if you’re asking people to do that, you need to go in gently and show people that you’re on their side.