Lyrongolem

Karma: 175

Lyrongolem Dec 19, 2023, 8:32 PM
5 points
1
in reply to: simon’s comment on: The Dark Arts
It seems to me ultra-BS is perhaps continuous with hyping up one particular way that reality might in fact be, in a way that is disproportionate to your actual probability, and that is also continuous with emphasizing a way that reality might in fact be which is actually proportionate with your subjective probability.
Yep! I think this is a pretty good summary. You want to understand reality just enough to where you can say things that sound plausible (and are in line with your reasoning) but omit just enough factual information to where your case isn’t undermined.
I once read a post (I forget where) that an amateur historian will be able to convince an uneducated onlooker of any historical argument simply because history is so full of empirical examples. Whatever argument you’re making, you can almost always find at least one example supporting your claim. Whether the rest of history contradicts their point is irrelevant, as the uneducated onlooker doesn’t know history. Same principle here. Finding plausible points to support an unplausible argument is almost trivially easy.
About public belief: I think that people do tend to pick up at least vaguely on what the words they encounter are optimized for, and ~~if you have the facts on your side but optimize for the recipient’s belief you do not have much advantage over someone optimizing for the opposite belief if the facts are too complicated.~~ Well actually, not so confident about, but I am confident about this: if you optimize for tribal signifiers—for appearing to be supporting the correct side to others on “your” side—then you severely torpedo your credibility re: convincing the other side. And I do think that that tends to occur whenever something gets controversial.
Yeah, I definitely agree. At some point you reach a hard limit on how much an uneducated onlooker is able to understand. They may have a vague idea, but your guess is as good as mine in terms of what that looks like. If the onlooker can’t tell which of two experts to believe they’ll have even more trouble with two people spouting BS. (if the judges were perfect Bayesian reasoners, you should expect them to do the logical equivalent of ignoring everything me and my opponet say, since we’re likely both wrong in every way that matters). Thus, they mostly default to tribal signals, and that not being possible, to whichever side appears more confident/convincing.
It’s not really possible to argue against tribal signals, because at that point logic flies out the window and what matters is whether you’re on someone’s ‘side’, whatever that means. It’s why you don’t usually see tribal appeals in debate (unless you’re me, and prep 2 separate cases for the 2 main tribes).

The Dark Arts

lsusr and Lyrongolem

Dec 19, 2023, 4:41 AM

134 points

49 comments9 min readLW link

Lyrongolem Dec 12, 2023, 12:10 AM
4 points
0
in reply to: lsusr’s comment on: A Socratic dialogue with my student
I’ve sent you his Discord information via PM. (After obtaining permission, of course.
Thank you very much! I think I’ll enjoy the chat. Just sent him the friend request. Oh, and, my discord is the same as my lesswrong btw.
Yep. In a debate competition, you can win with arguments that are obviously untrue to anyone who knows what you’re talking about
YES! Hahhahahaa… it’s quite dumb. The information you can reasonably convey in 4 minutes is so short that even when your case is common sense it’s hard to actually prove your point. I can bring up a variety of commonsense and economic arguments for why student loan forgiveness inflates prices, but my opponents can basically just say ‘nu-uh’ the entire debate, citing some random article saying it… somehow creates 1.2 million jobs? I sometimes wish I could just throw a book at them and say ‘read the damn research!’
But then, I should talk, I’m equally guilty. On the affirmative side I decided to all in on an emotional appeal to the starving children of bankrupt parents, and when my opponents brought up the obvious objection (rising tuition prices due to overcharge) I decided to sneakily claim that forgiveness wasn’t an actual subsidy and thus doesn’t allow the government to read prices. I also told the judge, verbatim, that my opponents were ‘misrepresenting their own evidence’ by claiming that forgiveness as a subsidy. I even invited the judge to examine the evidence himself, saying that it was on our side (it wasn’t). Seeming reasonable won us that debate, even though I most definitely was not being reasonable.
“The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.”
But hey, is fine. This is debate, and the only crime is to lose. We went undefeated again. Long live the dark arts!

Lyrongolem Dec 9, 2023, 6:55 AM
7 points
2
on: A Socratic dialogue with my student
This was super fun to read, thanks for sharing! Hm… your new student seems like an interesting person to talk to. Mind asking if he’d be interested in a chat with someone else his age? I’m also a public form (debate format) debater in high school, and I’m doing prep work for this particular topic on student loans as well. I’d love to get a chance to talk with him a bit, and I feel like he may enjoy it as well.
On that note, I think I can elaborate a bit on the format a bit in ways others might find helpful.
Public forum is one of many debate formats with it’s own time and argument structure. The general idea goes something like this. You and your partner (this is a 2v2 format) prepare a case about a few weeks to a month in advance for a topic that’s disclosed prior to the debate. Each side gets 4 minutes to make their initial speech. From there, each side gets a rebuttal, a cross examination, a summary, etc etc. About an hour later, each side gives their closing statements (final focus) and the judge drops their vote for the side which was more ‘persuasive’.
Now, I think your student is a bit new to the format, because it seems like he hasn’t gotten the optimal mindset for the format yet. In public forum, being persuasive almost never means being right. Quite the opposite, actually. You typically be persuasive by being completely damn wrong.
Let me illustrate with an example. In one of my last debate tournaments the resolution was: “The US military should substantially increase it’s military presence in the Artic.” Seems pretty clear cut and typically vague, and it could go any direction. A reasonable person might consider future artic trade routes, security obligations to neighbors, defense of strategic chokepoints or resources…
Fortunately, we were debaters, not reasonable people, so me and my partner ran two main arguments. Climate change and nuclear Armageddon. On the affirmative, the argument was fairly straightforward. Climate change bad, renewables good. To stop climate change we thus need rare earth minerals… but… China has 90% of them. We proceeded to find an evidence card saying how the Artic has a massive deposit of rare earth minerals, and how the US military should deploy forces to maintain security against grayzone operations. On the negative, things were much more fun. We found some instances of Russia sending ships/submarines to the US coast, the range of a nuclear hypersonic missile, and a few buildups of military bases in the Artic. We then proceeded to argue that Russia had a credible first strike capability and if we didn’t take the Artic we’d be at risk of nuclear Armageddon (yes, I’m serious, I actually argued that).
We clean swept that entire tournament without losing a single round.
For an outsider, I imagine this might seem pretty ludicrous (to be honest I’d think so too) but in the context of the actual format it makes perfect sense. The debaters aren’t experts, nor are they proficient in Bayes craft. Their readings are limited, and their prep time even more so. On a regular debate most teams would be scurrying to make counterarguments for common objections opponents might raise, often as late as the night before. We have just enough information and confidence to sound like experts, but only to a layperson. In front of an actual expert I’d imagine we look ridiculous. (I’d love to hear Bryan Caplan’s reaction to my argument saying student loan forgiveness boosts the economy). But that’s not a relevant concern. Nobody is an expert.
So what even if they were? You have 4 minutes for the main speech, and 4 minutes for the rebuttal. It takes 5 minutes to make a bullshit claim and a whole debate to prove it wrong. This is part of the reason why scientists typically don’t debate flat earthers. Any tinfoil hat theorist worth their salt can spend a minute spinning some wild story an exasperated expert will have to spend hours to disprove. Thus, most debaters can spare themselves the trouble of even trying.
Case in point: my evidence card for Russian nuclear threats was the range of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, about 1000 miles. Coincidentally, around the same distance from the Artic to the US mainland. Thus the argument for why control of the Artic is important. You can hit the mainland US with a first strike from the Artic, but not from Moscow. If my opponents spent 2 minutes to read the card they would’ve discovered another missile I neglected to mention, the Avantgarde, which has a range of 3000 miles. Even if they didn’t know this, the argument is obviously bogus. Hypersonics are not a credible first strike capability unless Russia has the ISR to identify and destroy ALL of our nuclear submarines, silos, and aircraft at the same time. But of course, my opponents never read much material on nuclear doctrine, so they repeated the claims about mutually assured destruction which I was able to shoot down with ease. (What mutually assured destruction? We’d be dead before we could react).
Likewise with rare earth minerals. I neglected to mention the US is not fully mining it’s stockpiles. I neglected to mention other mineral reserves. I also neglected to mention that China has no military forces in the Artic, and there’s no credible threat to defend against. Even if there was, I had no evidence of any US mining interests in the Artic. (I actually pointed this out against a team that stole the case and tried to run it against us. ’Why are you sending the military? What are they going to do, mine the minerals with tanks? Bomb the deposits with HIGHMARS?)
Now, all of this is obvious in hindsight, but in an hour long debate a team only has 2 minutes of prep time, so there’s basically no room for anybody except the fastest readers to credibly review all the evidence carefully. (Hell, I read at 1000wpm and I still have trouble). Thus, most of the time you can safely get away with the most egregious bullshit. In a setting where all claims are purportedly from ‘experts’ or ‘reliable sources’, where each word comes with complete confidence even when the speaker is lying through their teeth, it’s rarely an efficent strategy to actually pursue the truth. Rhetorical flourishes, appeals to fear, ridiculously outsized impacts, and weak arguments are the name of the day.
In that sense, I think I’ve illustrated that there isn’t such a thing as a truly ‘indefensible’ argument, only overly scrupulous debaters. With my four years of experience in the format I have reasonable confidence I can beat an novice in a fair public forum debate, even while taking a completely ridiculous stance like flat eartherism. Much the same with student loans, though the problem is less acute. Your student could do the same. Say with a straight face that student loans help the economy, and the power of social cognition will make it so.
To conclude, never argue with a public forum debater. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
(Note: This was an argumentative piece by a debater. Realities explained are not necessarily endorsed, and arguments made typically do not reflect my opinion or that of any sane person. I disavow responsibility for anyone who takes my arguments seriously :P)

Lyrongolem Nov 15, 2023, 5:34 AM
2 points
1
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Hm… pretty similar here. I also don’t have much of a media presence. I haven’t tried EA forums yet, mainly because I consider myself intellectually more aligned with LW, but in any case I’m open to looking. This is looking to be a more personal conversation now. Would you like to continue in direct messages? Open to hearing your suggestions, I’m just as clueless right now.

Lyrongolem Nov 13, 2023, 4:12 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Likely a good suggestion. I’m in a few communities myself. But then, I’m unsure if you’re familiar with how discord works. Discord is primarily a messaging app with public server features tacked on. Not the sort of community for posts like this. Are you aware of any particular communities within discord I could join? The general platform has many communities, much like reddit, but I’m not aware of any similar to lesswrong.

Lyrongolem Nov 11, 2023, 9:04 PM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Many thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it.
You’re probably right. I mainly started on lesswrong because this is a community I’m familiar with, and a place I can expect to understand basic norms. (I’ve read the sequences and have some understanding of rationalist discourse). I’m unsure how I’d fare in other communities, but then, I haven’t looked either. Are you familiar with any? I don’t know myself.

Lyrongolem Nov 7, 2023, 7:07 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Thanks for your reply!
Yes, you’re right, I realize I was rather thin on evidence for the link between institutional weakness and corruption. I believe this was like mind fallacy on my end, I assumed the link was obvious. But since clearly it was not allow me to go back and contextualize it.
Disclaimer: It’s late and I’m tired, prose quality will be lower than usual, and I’ll be prone to some rather dry political jokes.
To understand the link between institutions and corruption, I think it’s helpful just to use simple mental models. Consider this simple question: what causes corruption? The answer seems fairly straightforward. People are corrupt, they want money, etc etc. But clearly, this isn’t everything. Humans in different countries coming from similar racial, social, and class backgrounds tend to be varying levels of ‘corrupt’, but even countries with similar backgrounds often have wildly varying corruption levels. Take North and South Korea, for one example. Both were unified states emerging from occupation post WWII, but they took wildly different paths in their development as countries.
South Korea eventually transitioned from a military dictatorship to a free market democracy who know today. North Korea, however, remained a military dictatorship. This resulted in stark differences in corruption handling on both sides. In the global corruptions perceptions index, South Korea ranks 31st, while North Korea ranks an appalling 171st. Why was this?
The answer, I think, is institutions. South Korea, having developed a free market system and accountable mode of governance, is able to check the power of it’s political and economic elites. If the president of North Korea decides he wants to abuse his power, the people have no recourse. If the president of South Korea decides to abuse their power, they end up in prison. (See the 7 korean heads of state that ended up in jail, quite impressive for a 40 year period. We had 4 years with Trump and only managed a mugshot.)
Memes aside, strong institutions typically have a variety of methods to align their leaders with the needs of the people and stave off corruption. Understanding that those in power tend to abuse said power unless restricted in some way, most democracies have institutions in place to ensure no one person dominates the system. Typically, the most straightforward answer is elections. In democracies, a leader can be corrupt to the extent the public tolerates it. Be too corrupt and you end up losing elections, or serving prison time (cough cough South Korea). There is also much greater public oversight and freedom of information, which creates a drive towards transparency. If the CCP is corrupt there’s no real way to hold them accountable. The secret police will arrive to have a word with you. Xi Jinping can do as he likes and nobody has a say about it. If the American president tried to do the same we would see the news awash with headlines of scandal. The other political party would cackle, and voters would scramble to find a more reliable candidate.
These mechanisms of alignment, as I’d call them, are far from perfect. Even in liberal democracies like the US it’s common knowledge most congressmen are multi millionaires, and for individuals with modest state salaries they sure have an uncanny knack for obtaining huge sums of wealth. (Perhaps Pelosi should give day trading a try, she sure seems to have talent) However, the fact remains that corruption tends to be discouraged as a general rule, and instances of corruption tend to be far less overt and damaging. We don’t see, for instance, the head of state winning a state run lottery. Or Congress passing themselves a 10 billion dollar pay raise. Backroom deals, cushy corporate jobs, insider trader and the like are acceptable. Outright raising land rents like a feudal lord to fund direct salary increases is not. Our leaders are, in the end, constrained by law. This allows regular citizens to do the work of making money… mostly. Corruption will hurt, but it isn’t crippling as there’s at least some accountability.
Case in point, many of the worst offenders are simply convicted of federal corruption charges. Our last president was impeached twice and is currently on trial for, among other things, fraud and corruption. Imperfect as they are, these are still methods to keep the guy in charge accountable. This does not exist in countries with weak institutions. Many times, in fact, the institutions end up bolstering corruption.
Let’s return to the example of Mexico. Recall how Carlos Slim was able to build a tele-networking monopoly to plunder the wealth of the people. You might wonder how in the world he managed this, surely the law wouldn’t stand for such overtly criminal business practices? The issue is, not too surprisingly, that the law is on Slim’s side. Recurso de Amparo, originally a law designed to protect the constitutional rights of citizens, has been exploited by Slim’s lawyers to shield his business practices. See how Slim was able to dodge a record fine. This was the very same law Slim attempted to fall back on when he attempted his monopolistic practices in the US, only it didn’t exist. American law, in it’s infinite magnanimity to the rich and powerful, still managed to slap Carlos Slim with a fines for his comparatively much more minor transgressions. The tactics which Slim used to succeed in Mexico failed utterly in the US. Mostly if not completely due to the nature of the US’ institutions. For all it’s faults, the modern US is no longer in the gilded age. Overt monopolies are no longer allowed.
It’s not just that weak institutions favor the businesses of oligarchs either. Weak institutions actively give businesses to oligarchs. Consider post Soviet Russia, which saw previously state owned companies auctioned off to political cronies at bargain prices. Or post Soviet Hungary, which likewise handed billions to unscrupulous businessmen willing to play political games of power. Slim himself was an example of such a politically created oligarch in Mexico, having acquired his telecommunications company with shady backroom deals. Lacking any oversight, corrupt government officials stole like there was no tomorrow, happily selling the public good for private benefit. These are the structures who create men like Carlos Slim, Sandor Csyani, and Sergei Shoigu. All of whom received their wealth, not through aptitude, service, or innovation, but rather, political machinations.
How is the normal businessman meant to succeed, in an environment like this? The question is rhetorical. Of course they don’t. You do not compete with Carlos Slim’s megacorporation in Mexico. You do not attempt to create rival banks against Sandor Csyani in Hungary. You don’t invest in quality as a Russian procurement company, you invest in another mansion for Sergei Shoigu. In all examples listed we see the same problem. People will be corrupt if there is no institutional safeguards, much like they would commit crimes if there was no police force. Being corrupt, they naturally move to stifle free market competition and forcibly seize the assets of anyone who is successful but lacks a powerful political patron. There is no point in trying. There is no point in innovating. There is no point in trying to create jobs or lift people out of poverty. Now, playing politics and kissing the Supreme leader’s arse? That’s where the money is.
Having said all this, we find ourselves full circle back where we started, once again at institutions. As I illustrate, much of the problem with corruption (and yes, this applies to war also) is essentially an alignment issue between the ruler and ruled. The ruler(s) doesn’t need to care about their subjects, because they’re the damn ruler, they can do whatever they like. Corruption can leave schools underfunded and famine relief nonexistent. Wars can devastate families and tear lives to pieces. But the almighty Shepard cares nothing for the suffering of his sheep. Why should he? There is, after all, nothing stopping him.
I hope this was a coherent narrative to your satisfaction. Feel free to ask for elaboration or provide critiques. I’ll apologize in advance for the poor quality, but it’s late on a school night so I’ll have to get going. Hope you enjoyed, and look forward to your response!

Lyrongolem Nov 3, 2023, 1:26 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: NoriMori1992’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Yes, they are. In the main post my only quote blocks are direct copy/pastes from the web version of the book.

Lyrongolem Nov 2, 2023, 5:57 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
In my head I rephrased that thesis as poor institutions and practices can impair efficiency totally, which I found as unsurprising as a charity add turns as not entirely accurate. So if you target readers who find this controversial I may just not be the right reader for the feedback you seek.

Right, that makes sense, and it was part of the angle I was taking. When I said controversial I was mainly referring to the more general claim that aid tends to be ineffective in reducing long term poverty, with few exceptions. (the implication being that aid fails to address institutional issues) The idea that monetary resources plays a small (or as I argue, largely negligible role) in addressing long term issues seems to me like it would be controversial to many EAs. But then, this mostly semantical and hardly the main point. Let’s get into the heart of the issue.
Still, I gave some time thinking at: What could you do to make me update? Instead of mere illustration of failures when your thesis was ignored, can you also present cases where following this very thesis did make a success?
A very insightful question. I was initially a bit dubious myself. Where has my thesis been followed by aid organizations? Certainly I don’t recall any charities focusing on reforming government institutions! But then, on second thought, that was almost the entire point. It wasn’t aid programs reforming governments, but rather, people.
Consider all the wealthiest nations in the world. With few exceptions, the richest nations are the ones with strong institutions, particularly representative, democratic ones. Although there are exceptions, they tend to be few and far between (see Singapore with an authoritarian technocracy that’s ruthlessly efficient, or Qatar with their absurd amounts of oil wealth. Meanwhile, nations with defunct or nonexistent institutions (see North Korea, The Congo, Mexico, South Africa) invariably face poverty and destitution on a mass scale. Even in China, one of the great economic success stories, we still see defunct instructional inheritances like the hukou system result in situations like 25% of the Chinese workforce being trapped in subsistence agriculture (compared to around 2% in the US, mostly industrial farmers).
In that sense, I believe I can answer your question about precision.
What’s the minimal institutions before charity get efficient? How much efficiency do we gain for what progress in institutions? Could you find if institutions explain more variance than, say, war and corruption?
I would liken institutions to a force multipliers in the military sense. One soldier with a gun >>> one hundred soldiers with spears. In the same way, powerful institutions enhance the ability of monetary and other resources to address poverty. Consider the following example, Mexico. Mexico has 44% of it’s population living in below subsistence conditions, with about 9% in extreme poverty. Part of the reason for this is stark inequality. In 2021, the wealthiest 10% of households held nearly 80% of household wealth. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% have less than 5% of the wealth, and the figure has only decreased over the years. Even among the top 10%, inequality is appalling, with top ranking businessmen like Carlos Slim making billions through corrupt business practices that plundered the country’s wealth and gutted it’s government.
What difference does more money even make, in a situation like this? Even if household wealth were to double tomorrow the poorest households would still be teetering on the precipice of starvation as kleptocrats like Slim make billions. The problem is not inherently lack of food, of resources, of technology or productivity. But rather, deeply rotten, unfair institutions which favor businessmen like Slim at the expense of the bottom millions.
I could probably continue for hours on the one example of Mexico, but I don’t think I need to. Kraut has already done a long, several hour long series on the development of Mexican corruption and institutions.
(1) The Mexican American Border | From War to Wall—YouTube
The bottom line is that institutions matter, not just as a sidenote enabling aid but the chief driver of prosperity in nations. Strong market and regulatory institutions in the US created the incentives necessary to create world renowned innovators and technologies. Gates with Microsoft computers, Jobbs with Apple phones, and now openAI with GPT. Even beforehand the countless explosions of patent technologies and industrial growth was one of the chief drivers of American wealth. This is not merely the case now, but throughout all of history. When our strongest companies and businesspeople succeed we can hope to enjoy (at least partially) increased tax money, social benefits, and increased income and jobs. Though these institutions aren’t perfect, Americans can share or at least coexist with the benefits of growth. The same is not true in Mexico, where a zero sum game sees people like Slim win at the expense of everyone else.
In that sense, I find this question rather misguided.
Could you find if institutions explain more variance than, say, war and corruption?
As I illustrate with Mexico, institutions do not explain more variance than war and corruption. Rather, they are the very causes of war and corruption. Lack of institutional safeguards and transparency create situations where the elite can plunder the wealth of the commons. You will notice that Slim did not successfully get away with his business practices in the US. Institutional safeguards like a (mostly) functioning legal and justice system forced him out with countless fines. Meanwhile, many others like Slim may steal from the Mexican people with impunity. They are the reason why the Mexican government colludes with cartels. They are the reason why crime stays at appalling highs. They are, in short, the reason Mexico is poor. To date there are more rich Mexican Americans than there are rich Mexicans. How comically tragic is that?
Then there is war. We have to remember that lack of checks on autocratic power is often what causes this problem in the first place. See Putin in Ukraine, the countless warlords in Africa, or, most famously, Hitler in Europe. Fundamentally we see how lack of constraints on warmongering dictators allows wars of conquest, genocide for national or ethnic grandeur. Actions that would be unthinkable in democracies are a fact of life in dictatorships, simply because the dictator has power and their personal interests do not align with the interests of the state.
The issue of institutions are not unique to Mexico. Rather, we see them all throughout the world. The best comparison I can think of is the difference between Poland and Hungary, both former Soviet bloc states from similar beginnings which eventually saw a massive shift in institutional development. From similar beginnings, they took dramatically different paths. Poland, following the devastation of Soviet rule, was able to reconstruct following lines of western institutional development, with free markets, fair elections, and checks on elite power. Hungary, meanwhile, followed a very different path, echoing the plunder of formerly state owned companies by Russian Oligarchs. To date, Hungary is the most corrupt country in the EU, a country ran by a select business elite with connections to dictator Victor Orban. And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Now, years later, the economy of Poland is projected to overtake the UK. Meanwhile, despite generous EU subsidies, 20% of Hungarians face risk of poverty or social exclusion.
As someone who has studied history and modern politics as a hobby, I can point you to any number of examples. Success in Botswana. Failure in Haiti. Famine in Russia, in China, in India. Economic miracles in South Korea, in Japan, and in Taiwan. I could craft 3 separate posts worth of content and it would still not be enough. But I think this is sufficient to underscore my point.
I will concede that there are still exceptions. The Gulf Arab monarchies survive off natural resources soon to fade into irrelevancy. Singapore and China off efficient (or at least supposedly efficient) models of governance that we already see failing in China. But they are tiny, with unique circumstances, whereas the modern liberal democracies are almost without fail rich and well developed.
In that sense, I’m led to believe Fukuyama was right in some aspects. Though it may not be the end of history, Western liberal democracy certainly is a contender for one of the greatest innovations humanity has ever made, with it’s strong institutions, rule of law, free markets and respect for human dignity. It has, more widely and more consistently than any other method, driven out poverty and raised nations to prosperity.
Does this make you update? Regardless of whether you do or don’t, I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for the question! It forced me to think deeper about my beliefs and justify them more coherently. I’m unsure if this is helpful in the realm of aid specifically, but I believe it does provide ample evidence for my thesis and raise it’s coherency.

Lyrongolem Oct 31, 2023, 4:38 AM
0 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
(Do you want to prove EA is doom to fail? I don’t think so but that’s one way to read the title.)
Hm… right. That would make sense. I think I can see how people might misread that. No, I had no intention of doing anything like that. I was trying to address the shortcomings of charity, particularly in the realm of structural and institutional rot (and the other myriad causes of poverty). EA charity faces many of the same issues in this regard, but ‘doomed to fail’ is hardly the point I would like to make. (If anything I try my best to advocate the opposite by making a donation myself) I was merely trying to point out that foreign/charity aid in general cannot hope to solve ingrained root causes of poverty without substantial, unsustainably large investments.
Part of the issue may have to do with my writing style. I try to aim for emotionally evocative, powerful posts. I find that this is a good way to get people engaged and generate discussion. (It also tends to be more fulfilling to write) This seems to have gotten in the way of clarity. Given the weight and circumstances of the subject matter (millions of people living in misery) I thought it was more than appropriate to amp up my language. Of course, this is still no excuse for being unclear. I should probably re-examine my diction.
That said, do you think I could change the title or edit in a disclaimer? The title itself was largely a stylistic choice, while I certainly could’ve said ‘aid to the poor has certain practical limitations’ I feel like that’s hardly interesting nor conductive towards sparking a discussion. I am ultimately still presenting what I believe is a more controversial thesis, and I thought my title should reflect that.

Lyrongolem Oct 31, 2023, 4:21 AM
1 point
0
in reply to: Nathaniel Monson’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Thanks so much for your comment!
Hm… yes, upon further reflection your summarization seems accurate, or at least highly plausible. I am not too sure what the mindset of the average LWer or EA looks like myself. (although I’ve frequented the site for some time, I’m mainly reading random frontpage posts that pique my interest, I don’t attend meetups, participate in group activities, or much other things of that nature) It’s not merely reading like I haven’t engaged much in their world. The truth is I simply haven’t, I have no intention of hiding it. I tagged the post EA because my points on aid address charities in general quite broadly, and so I thought it would be of interest to EA adjacent individuals. I also hoped that they might be able to enlighten me a bit on the many parts of EA I still don’t fully understand. The post was never meant to critique or even focus on EA.
This may have gotten lost in everything else I was attempting to do in the post, but one of the central motivations was to disprove a point I saw in a RA fundraiser that unconditional cash transfers could ‘eradicate’ global poverty. I found the initiative commendable, but unrealistic for a variety of reasons, many of which I detailed in the post. I never meant to say the aid wouldn’t help, but rather, it was likely insufficient to meet their goal of ending long term poverty.
That said, yes, you are right. My evidence does not support the claim that aid is completely ineffective in ending long term poverty. But rather, that aid requires much higher volumes to solve the long term issues, in conjunction with many other things. In my mind this was still meant aid was an inadequate solution since I didn’t believe the volumes required to solve the issue would be a reasonable demand upon charity or foreign aid (just look at the enormous price tag of millennium villages). Thinking back, I probably exaggerated a bit in the title and in some of my claims. While the logical points may have been sound, I may have mispresented them in the title and elsewhere. (I realize I sound a bit silly in hindsight, it’s easy to see how people might interpret the phrase ‘doesn’t work’ as useless versus inefficient to the point of implausibility)
I think part of my issue with this post is that I’m really just uncertain what my audience believes and how they might react or interpret different things I say. While I have some idea and a few vague guesses, there’s no real way to know for certain. I’m also unsure if I would have any way of knowing without simply accruing direct experience, but your thoughts definitely helped me in this regard. I will keep in mind your model of LW when making posts in the future. Thanks once again!
That said, do you have any critiques/questions regarding the post personally? I’d be happy to continue chatting about any potential weak spots or logical errors.

Lyrongolem Oct 29, 2023, 10:48 PM
1 point
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
You seem to be relatively unclear about what exact thesis you are arguing for. It’s quite possible for aid to be useful and work together with other factors.
Ok, in that case, allow me to clarify.
I believe that while aid can be useful or effective in many instances (note that here I am using a much more limited definition of providing immediate quality of life boosts, as opposed to a long term solution), the effect does not extend to address long term issues that cause poverty. Thus poverty will continue to persist without being eradicated (what I would view as real effectiveness). Basically, while painkillers can help you with a broken leg, your leg is still broken. Painkillers alone, independent of other treatment, will fail to be effective in actually helping you walk again.
Note that I am not comparing the effects of different painkillers. I do not distinguish between scientifically researched painkillers and scientifically unsound homeopathy. That is besides the point of the post. The post is mainly about how painkillers cannot independently solve the problem. This is why I am not researching EA adjacent charities in greater detail. EA is a facet of the post, but not the focus. I have attempted to explain this in both my post and my response.
In plain language, I am saying that interventions may be successful in alleviating the negative effects of poverty (malnutrition, death, disease) over the short term. But they fail to address the long term causes of poverty and thus do not provide a feasible long term solution. Thus while it may ‘reduce poverty’ in a limited way I do not feel it meets the criteria for a meaningfully sustainable solution. I’ve already provided a long and exhaustive list of evidence for this, both in my post and my responses. I do not believe you have addressed my evidence properly.
I find that this has become a reoccurring pattern in our conversation. I have outlined many lists of evidence and why I believe it supports my thesis. Are you willing to take the time and examine them? If not, I don’t believe it will be productive to continue. In the interest of respecting your time I have done my best to summarize, analyze, and cut out relevant excerpts I believe support my argument. Can you do the same? If not, this will likely be my last response.

Lyrongolem Oct 29, 2023, 8:50 PM
0 points
0
in reply to: Ilio’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
You’re right, that’s probably a good idea. I considered a more comprehensive disclaimer myself when writing, but then opted against it when I realize it was likely to weaken the main point of my post. Even though this post is constrained by being only able to consider past failures (I have no information about the future), the past is still a very strong predictor of how the future turns out. Based off analysis of the past I’m still inclined to believe that foreign/charity aid by itself is insufficient to solve the root causes of poverty. I don’t believe altruism is inefficient per se, or that the problem of poverty can’t be solved (of course it has been). I am merely seeking to rebut the claim that I have seen in the fundraiser video, which seems to imply that charity aid alone would be enough to eradicate poverty (a claim which I find wildly overblown). I find action worthwhile, but I also find that the predicted resulted don’t seem to meet the scale claimed by many people. I thought I was clear enough in this regard.
But then, after a few recent comments I’m inclined to believe I definitely misrepresented my case somewhere, or maybe my language was unclear. However, it’s a bit difficult for me to pinpoint where exactly the miscommunication occurred. Could you elaborate on that point? This is my article, so it’s quite difficult to see where I goofed up. This is all in my head, so it’s quite obvious to me. If you could provide a disclaimer text for me I would be immensely grateful.
Regarding another working hypothesis, I believe I could do that, but I’m unsure if I’ll have the time or will to amass the relevant evidence. Proving the negation of a claim is much easier than proving a claim. Institutional economics (a school of thought which believes institutions to be the greatest determinant of economic success) is already the position of many thinkers, and if I were to defend it I would also have to research competing economic theories and many more real world examples to do it justice. Not to mention that I’m not an economist myself. I feel like Poor Economics (which has in it’s thesis a focus on individuals) and Why Nations Fail (which studies how institutions affect growth) offer far better analysis than I could hope to, so I’m disinclined to create the thesis. I don’t believe it’s necessary when other people have already created better sources to study. Instead I’ll just point those interested to the relevant bodies of research.
Is your opinion different? I’d be happy to discuss the merits of a separate post or edits to this one.

Lyrongolem Oct 29, 2023, 3:42 AM
1 point
−2
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Basically, you have some belief about the importance of addressing root causes, for which you don’t lie out evidence.
I’m… not too sure how to respond to this. For the first half of my post I focused almost exclusively on the causes of poverty, poverty traps, and the basic concept that poverty doesn’t simply disappear until the root causes are addressed. In the Millenium villages project I summarize the findings of many root causes, including lack of infrastructure (and subsequent lack of access to world markets), the settlement being distant from water sources, and a general lack of relevant infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc) that caused the region to be so impoverished to begin with. Then in the institutional problem section I bring up the example of South Africa, which faces dire economic meltdown largely due to corruption and failure of energy infrastructure. In response to your post I also brough up the example of China, which developed through the presence of institutional growth and sound policymaking, and regressed to famines when none of these were present. (see the great leap forward under Mao)
In all of the examples I mentioned, we will find:
1. That there are a multitude of causes for the poverty, not just a direct lack of food or money, but rather, a root cause that will continue to create more poverty if left unaddressed.
2. A failure of institutions directly causing or being related to causes of poverty or hunger. (infrastructure failure and policymaking failures are of course part of what a state’s institutions are meant to deliver, which failed to in South Africa and CCP China under Mao)
3. No significant correlation between aid and improved outcomes. And, to the contrary, significant correlation between institutional growth and outcomes.
I am, to the best of my knowledge, using deductive reasoning. I begin from the general principles of what causes poverty. These principles, however, are not intuitive, nor did they originate from me. I cite multiple sources, historical precedents, and an entire book by award winning MIT researchers. Does this not count as rationalism? I believe I have used a variety of empirical evidence, although not all of them had fancy graphs to accompany them. I am also ready to defend the validity of my sources and the conclusions they draw. Do you take issue with any of them? If so, feel free to state your opinion.
As for Givedirectly specifically, I can mention a few issues I see with it’s claims of ‘effectiveness’. In the fundraiser video I linked previously, they mention a 2016 study finding an increase in incomes and spending (as expected), as well as positive economic effects 4 years later. HOWEVER… a follow up 9 years later found no continued effects. Insofar as meeting my metric of solving long term issues of poverty, GiveDirectly fails. Insofar as truly breaking the poverty cycle (which would mean a sustained rise in incomes), it also fails. Nevermind their lofty goal of ‘eradicating global extreme poverty’ claimed by the fundraising video. Is this sufficient empirical evidence in your view?
I understand that GiveDirectly may or may not be more effective or empirical than other charities. I do not, however, understand how it would meet the goal of ‘eradicating global extreme poverty’, which seems to be their stated goal. I can continue to find more examples with ease, but I don’t think I need to. Instead, I’d like to ask that you bring forward an example of aid being effective in reducing long term poverty at reasonable cost. If such an example does exist, and is fairly common, I imagine you would have no trouble finding it. If this is not the case, I don’t find sifting through hundreds of failures to be a worthwhile use of our time.
Now, onto Nigeria. I am once again unsure what your argument is. Yes, Nigeria has seen poverty reductions. So has China, and many areas in the world. I do not dispute that poverty can be reduced, only that aid alone fails to reduce poverty. Is there a proven connection between aid and poverty reduction in Nigeria?
The world bank seems to believe otherwise.
- Access to electricity and improving service delivery remain a priority, with 80 million Nigerians lacking access to grid electricity, and annual economic losses due to unreliable power are estimated at 28 billion dollars.
Q: In recent years, significant progress has been made, what are the main development outcomes that should be highlighted?
A: Nigeria has made some notable progress even within the challenging environment of increased poverty associated with growing insecurity and the economic downturn. The Government recently embarked on a set of bold reforms starting with unification of its multiple exchange rates, introduction of a market-based pricing mechanism for gasoline, eliminating subsidies and adjusting electricity tariffs. These measures allowed the government to cut non-essential expenditures and redirect resources towards the COVID-19 response both at federal and state levels; and improve debt transparency and accountability of its oil and gas sector. An important milestone, the country was officially declared free of polio in 2020. Notable efforts were made to increase accountability in the public sector, with 35 states publishing their annual budgets in 2020; and 15 states now operate a single treasury account.
Q: So, what lies ahead and how will we work to deliver results at scale?
A: The onset of the COVID-19 crisis has made the task that much more challenging and urgent because of the severity of the economic downturn and the decline in fiscal resources. Without decisive action to marshal the fiscal resources and tackle long-awaited structural reforms, Nigeria risks repeating the experience of the 1980s shocks, which set back the country’s development progress by decades.
Note that the big struggles the world bank references are in the realm of infrastructure, reform, and governmental action to both utilize resources and improve healthcare outcomes, as well as address corruption. The problem is ‘structural reforms’, the solution is ‘structural reforms’. Altogether Nigeria only strengthens my point about institutions being key to economic improvement. In fact, one of the world bank’s key observations is that:
...Poverty is increasingly being understood as a multidimensional phenomenon.^[3] Even households who are not monetarily poor may still be unable to send their children to school or may have members who are malnourished. In participatory studies, poor people themselves say that non-monetary factors—including food security, housing, health, education, and security—matter directly for their wellbeing. Since not all of these factors can be accessed in the market, measuring monetary income or consumption alone may not be enough. Human capital, housing, and basic infrastructure are also key correlates of monetary poverty. Multidimensional poverty indicators, including the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index produced by the United Nations Development Programme and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, have thus arisen; the World Bank has its own Multidimensional Poverty Measure (MPM) that captures dimensions of education and basic infrastructure alongside monetary poverty.
So, what picture of poverty does the multidimensional approach paint in Nigeria? According to the MPM, as many as 47.3% of Nigerians—some 98 million people—live in multidimensional poverty.^[4] This is more than the entire population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As such, Nigeria is the largest contributor to multidimensional poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region experiencing the highest levels of deprivations in multidimensional poverty. Meeting regional and global targets on non-monetary poverty—as well as monetary poverty—therefore hinges on Nigeria.
In other words, a myriad of root issues is causing poverty, not just direct lack of funds. In fact, even data about people breaking out of the poverty line can be misleading, because monetary gains may not increase access to social services or improve outcomes in other areas. Aid, charitable or otherwise, has not been mentioned by the world bank as a decisive factor in curbing poverty. Thus in every way Nigeria supports my thesis about poverty having root causes aid fails to address.
I have yet to come across a strong argument indicating that aid alone is sufficient to end poverty. You seem to believe otherwise. Can you find an example of this being the case? Thus far, I don’t believe you have made a sufficiently strong case for the negation of my claim. You have also neglected to state your competing viewpoint.
I have to ask what your view is. What do you think causes poverty? What do you think will solve it, long term? With such a wide gap in context it’s extremely difficult to understand where you are coming from. I am unsure if I see what the crux of this disagreement is, but if you would like to we could continue to find it.

Lyrongolem Oct 29, 2023, 2:35 AM
0 points
−2
in reply to: Viliam’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Next time, please make the point of the article easier to find.
Sorry? What point are you referring to? In my thoughts at least, this article was about the root causes of poverty and why aid fails to address it adequately. If there was such a thing as a main point (and in writing this I had to summarize many) I would describe this as it. Thus, the opening paragraphs outline my general argument. I put forward the claim I am attempting to refute:
that foreign/charity aid to 3rd world countries ‘works’ in the sense that it would function as a ‘solution’ for global extreme poverty.
as well as the methods I am using for the refutation.
In the rest of this post, I’d like to synthesize summaries and excerpts from some sources I’ve read on poverty, and why it refutes the notion that aid alone is enough to ‘solve’ the problem.
I’m a little confused. What was the main point of the article in your view? My intention was to make it clear, but maybe I was unsuccessful. The argument is as follows: aid to the poor through charitable (as well as many other means), fails in general because it does not sufficiently address the systemic causes of poverty. Thus the analogy of a patient using painkillers instead of going to the hospital for treatment.
The main reason I decided against including many examples of aid failing (aside from length) was because it did not serve the ‘main point’ of the argument. In my view, this article was primarily an exercise in deductive reasoning. I begin with the principles behind the causes of poverty, and then illustrate how people have attempted (and failed) to solve them through charitable. This was done through a few examples, not just Millenium villages, although the others are mentioned in far less length. My primary interest in this article was setting forward the principles themselves, rather than providing a volume of examples. I do not see why I should compare different examples of aid (all of which being unsuccessful under my framework) when my goal isn’t to compare their effects. That would be missing the forest for the trees.
Allow me to adopt your analogy to explain where I thought I was going with my argument. Many people in poorer areas are illiterate. Without first raising literacy no amount of books of high quality will improve them intellectually. I then proceed to find an example of people attempting to raise literacy, but failing, for various reasons (turns out the readers didn’t like a particular book). Notice I am not saying any particular book is stupid. I am saying that donating books to illiterate readers is unlikely to accomplish anything unless we also attempt to make them literate. (Note that I never said anything on giving up books! I made a donation myself and encouraged others to do the same!)
I am, of course, open to changing my mind. But I would require evidence of either A. aid/methods of aid proven to be effective in reducing long term poverty at scale with reasonable cost or B. basic logical flaws with my premise of what causes and sustains poverty. If you can cut an excerpt for me from a source, I would be happy to view it, but unfortunately I do not have time to read through a full book or sequence.
Do you still find my reasoning fallacious? If so, feel free to point out how.

Lyrongolem Oct 26, 2023, 4:06 AM
1 point
0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work
Right, maybe I should’ve clarified. For me, this post was about charity and aid in general, not EA in specific. Apologies for any confusion involved. I tagged the post EA because the post that inspired mine was EA adjacent and because I felt that much of what I said about charity in general also applies to EA. I’m new, so I don’t fully understand the tagging system. If my reasoning for the tag is flawed feel free to explain how, and I will remove it.
That said, let me break down my thoughts on EA charity once again, for the sake of clarity. I believe that everything I said in this post (ignoring institutional problems, not addressing poverty traps, being blind to nuances of specific situations) also applies to EA charities. This is not to say that other charities don’t have the same problems, but rather, that EA has them also. Now, I won’t claim to be aware of a wide scale of EA charities, in fact, I’m still new and I’ve encountered only a very few, with the one I referenced in the post being one example. I understand there might be many more, but when I made this post I had the unconditional cash transfers in mind.
The unconditional cash transfers, while circumventing many issues (middlemen, corruption, etc) fail in my view to address the myriad roots of poverty. Presupposing that there are markets capable of supplying needs for the recipients at scale, we would likely be safe in assuming that the recipients have a temporary boost in quality of life. We would not, however, be safe to assume that crime would go down, schools would be built, healthcare would be provided for… etc etc. Fundamentally, the unconditional cash transfers are just that: cash transfers that are unconditional. There is no impetus for providing any long term solution to the root issues at play. Do you take issue with this reasoning? If so, feel free to respond as such.
The reason I chose the millennium villages project was because it was an answer to my own framework. Unlike unconditional cash transfers, it made a serious (and under certain viewpoints, successful) attempt at addressing root issues. I could’ve used my framework of analysis to critique unconditional cash transfers, but I don’t think that would have been worthwhile. Clearly if you accept my framework that institutions and unique circumstances make poverty hard to solve there is little doubt that cash transfers will not be an adequate solution. Use of the project, was, in short, my attempt at steel manning the position that aid works or could work.
That said, if you have any examples of aid that has ‘worked’, I would be happy to look over them. For the purposes of this post I was merely laying out general principles I had gathered from a variety of sources. I do not have the same depth of research or knowledge as an actual subject matter expert, hence the disclaimer.
Onto the point about the goal of reducing poverty by half, I don’t dispute that. The problem is, however, that I don’t believe it has any great connection to aid. For instance, here is an article from the world bank on how China has contributed the vast majority of people lifted from extreme poverty. While it’s fair to claim the west has benefitted from economic growth, the causes of China’s rise have little to do with charity aid and more with improved governance, western investment, and sheer force of population. China’s poverty was not reduced by an influx of aid programs, but rather, a rapid industrialization that resulted in massive quality of life increases. This increase was in large part due to the growth of trade networks, infrastructure, and other fruits of strong (if corrupt) institutions. I don’t have any evidence directly on hand for this claim, but I think most would agree with it from common sense and their understanding of history. If you would like more rigorous proof feel free to request it. I don’t believe its necessary.
People exit poverty for a variety of reasons. It could be immigration, hard work, freak luck, or even aid, in some circumstances. But by and large I believe that history proves institutions to be the strongest factor behind poverty eradication. Attributing the poverty reduction of recent decades to aid alone is grossly misleading. As such I don’t find reductions in poverty to contradict my claim that aid fails. If anything i find it to prove my point, as the poverty decrease correlates with institutional growth (particularly of markets under a strong central government) rather than aid.
I hope this answers any questions you may have had. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. I’m new and still learning, so please feel free to correct me.

Beyond the Data: Why aid to poor doesn’t work

LyrongolemOct 25, 2023, 5:03 AM

2 points

31 comments12 min readLW link

Lyrongolem Sep 14, 2023, 6:01 AM
2 points
0
in reply to: Caerulea-Lawrence’s comment on: Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Universe?
Hello Caerulea-Lawrence,
Thanks for the feedback! I deeply appreciate it. The praise makes my confidence go up. Glad to be able to participate in the discussion :D.
So… regarding useful angles, I thought it was somewhat self explanatory at the time, but in hindsight I think I was suffering from typical mind fallacy and failed to properly explain it. Allow me to clarify my thoughts.
I feel that in general terms your position that the universe is “fundamentally wrong” (ie: doesn’t care for human values) is rather uncontestable. While I don’t think there is necessarily a useful angle for believing this, there are countless ways that not believing it can go wrong. I think I’ll use theodicy as a very obvious example which someone else had already explored.
Theodicy is, in essence, the belief that the universe rewards good and punishes evil, so thus all outcomes are deserved. Hard work always leads to success. Bad deeds always lead to punishment. Anyone with any understanding of politics or social situations, however, would understand the horrific implications of this line of thinking. Anybody who is in poverty has nobody but themselves to blame, even if their circumstances were entirely out of their control. Those who fall sick must have deserved it, and thus don’t deserve treatment. Those with depression have earned it…
I could go on, but I don’t think I need to. This is at it’s core monstrous thinking that strips human beings of their deserved empathy, and explains away all of our problems under the veneer of fairness. Far too often it’s used to justify inaction. Why help the poor if they’re undeserving? Why speak for those without a voice, if they don’t exercise it? Why fight for those unable to defend themselves? They could’ve done something, or so the line of thinking goes. More often than not, they can’t. Meanwhile the rich and powerful pat themselves on the back for having being born into wealth and privilege. Like the divine right of kings which preceded it, the theodicy of ‘deserts’ encourages us to be complacent. It’s thus not a worthy belief.
The thought that the universe won’t protect us is hardly comforting, but I think it’s a sober belief that lends itself well to sober decisions. It reminds us of our own privileges, our circumstances, our luck. It teaches us to be grateful, but also, to be sympathetic towards the challenges of others. I think this may be the head on tackling of your position that you were referring to. If not, I apologize, I may have misread.
In any case my view is that the universe’s problems are not really a problem in the conventional sense. Rather than something that can truly be solved, they are more of a harsh reality we accept with dignity. The fact remains, however, that we can learn from the truth, and avoid many pitfalls that might come from going down irrational paths.
Thanks for your response once again! This is looking like an interesting discussion, and I’m interested in continuing. Would you mind taking this to a more private channel? Like Dms, maybe? I don’t mind posting in public, but it makes me feel a bit self conscious and I think I might express myself better in private.

Lyrongolem Sep 13, 2023, 6:13 AM
1 point
0
on: Is there something fundamentally wrong with the Universe?
I feel like this is a case of asking the wrong question. If we are asked ‘is the universe aligned with human values’ then the answer would be sadly no. People die for senseless and arbitrary reasons. We are forced to jump through countless hoops to meet our physical needs. Those who fail to jump through the hoops, often through no fault of their own, end up dying. But I don’t think this is useful knowledge, or particularly in the context of fixing society’s problems.
But while the universe does not give us an easy way to meet our goals, we still have goals. Thus, the important question is, in my view at least: what is the best way to achieve those goals? Irrespective of genetics, psychology, or any other factors causing murder, we agree that murder is bad. No matter the difficulty of meeting our physical needs, most of us nevertheless strive to meet them. To do so we create a variety of systems, be they moral frameworks, states, laws, or anything else necessary for human interaction and survival.
Note, however, that none of this accesses factors outside of our control (like say, the universe!). We take the rules of the game as a given and try to optimize for our goals with the tools we have. I don’t think focusing on the system is productive unless we have a means to change the system.
To illustrate the point: your country is an autocracy where the way to get anything done is to gain the autocrat’s favor and satisfy the interests of a narrow elite. Naturally, this system works quite poorly, and people are regularly oppressed. A reasonable observer might conclude that the problem is the system. We want to overthrow the autocrat and install a better form of government, like say, democracy. This is a good mode of thinking, primarily because it’s actually possible to do.

But suppose we have a different situation. Your country is a well functioning democracy, but prone to hurricanes that are devastating and kill large amounts of people. Here you don’t really have a choice but adapt. Sure, you could move, take precautions, buy insurance, but at the end of the day the hurricane will happen and you can’t just dial up Thor to have him call the extreme weather events off. Fixating on the unfairness of the universe is rather pointless here, because you can’t change anything.
I think real life is mainly a mix of the two. In that sense, personal responsibility is both omnipresent and nonexistent at the same time. Yes, you cannot control the circumstances of your birth, your education, your genetics, your geographic location, BUT… at the end of the day you still get to make almost every decision that matters. To live or not to live. To learn or not to learn. To help or not to help. No decision is entirely your own, but most people tend to have enough control over their actions that we consider it fair to deem them responsible for personal actions. And we certainly do often have the ability to change our own lives—for the better or worse.
I think I might ask back, “So what?” The universe is unfair, it’s amoral, it doesn’t care about good or evil, much less your survival. Should it change how we act? Make us dream less, strive less, think less?

I don’t think so.
(First response to a post on LW, woo! I felt so intimidated haha. Apologies in advance if I sound rude, inconsiderate, or if the post is just badly written. It’s my first time. Critiques welcome! I’ll be off to bed now tho, stayed up way too late writing this. Night!)