Beware Systemic Change

[makattak]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/22/beware-systemic-change/

The author of the above is an "Efficient Altruist", which signals to me an understanding of economics.

The entire post is an excellent warning about unintended consequences (though he never uses those words) and the danger of focusing on what you think the results of political change will be.

He likely disagrees with me on several issues, but I have to applaud not only his self-awareness, but his understanding of his political opponents.

Most impressive (in that vein) was this:

...As for opposing gay marriage, I think you’re going beyond your supposed reliance on evidence here. The strongest conservative case against gay marriage is that it reinforces a centuries-long redefinition of marriage from a strategic partnership focused on child-rearing to a ceremonial acknowledgment of romantic infatuation, potentially leading to a deep shift in the way people think about issues like who to marry, when to have kids, when to get divorced, and how to treat their family. That argument hasn’t been rigorously evaluated by statisticians and found wanting. It’s been found annoying and left untouched. Your differences are foundational assumptions and methodological disagreements about what sorts of issues to focus on, not simple “he made an arithmetic error when calculating the effects” style obvious superiority.

Please note, this is not a gay marriage post, but a post about being wary of limitations and not paying attention only to observable, measurable (at the time, at least) results and ignoring the unseen, less measurable results of a policy preference. From that, he leads into being wary of alienating others and creating zero-sum games with outcomes that are not necessarily beneficial.

The entire piece is a warning that people who believe in doing the most good ought to focus their efforts where everyone can agree they are doing good. It's quite impressive, if long. It is worth it to read the whole thing.

[makattak]

Another great quote:

...A quick run through the history books shows that smart people trying to effect systemic change have an imperfect track record. I won’t say that they’re unusually bad compared to other demographics, but certainly nothing as stellar as the “let’s just not be morons” theory might lead one to expect. You like quantifiable things and specific examples, so let me give you one. I’ve sometimes thought that Friedrich Engels can be considered one of the fathers of effective altruism – at least of the earning-to-give variety. Wikipedia says:

Once Engels made it to Britain, he decided to re-enter the Manchester company in which his father held shares, in order to be able to support Marx financially, so that Marx could work on his masterpiece Das Kapital. Engels didn’t like the work but did it for the good of the cause.

And in one sense, Engels-as-altruist was utterly brilliant. He effectively zeroed in on the most influential thinker of his era, funded an otherwise-impossible level of output from him, and his work directly led to revolutions in a dozen countries with radical change in the lives of billions of people. But in the more important sense, the net effect of his contribution was global mass murder without any lasting positive change. If we count him as an effective altruist – and under the circumstances I’m not sure we can do otherwise – then the net contribution of the movement throughout history has been spectacularly negative. That should make us really concerned. Not “nod sagely and promise to think about it” level of concern, but more “run away screaming” level of concern. That’s why I’m so reluctant to accept your otherwise-reasonable points about the seemingly obvious issues.

[zahc]

My favorite :

– if everyone gave 10% of their income to effective charity, it would be more than enough to end world poverty, cure several major diseases, and start a cultural and scientific renaissance. If everyone became very interested in systemic change, we would probably have a civil war. 

[Ron]

That is one of the blogs I used to read somewhat regularly. For some reason I haven't visited it in a while.

[MechAg94]

My favorite :

– if everyone gave 10% of their income to effective charity, it would be more than enough to end world poverty, cure several major diseases, and start a cultural and scientific renaissance. If everyone became very interested in systemic change, we would probably have a civil war.

Except it really wouldn't.  He assumes the money would be used effectively where it needed to be used.  He also assumes the governments of the world really want those issues to be resolved.  None of that would actually happen in real life.  I'll have to read the link later.

[makattak]

Except it really wouldn't.  He assumes the money would be used effectively where it needed to be used.  He also assumes the governments of the world really want those issues to be resolved.  None of that would actually happen in real life.  I'll have to read the link later.

Psst... the author is an efficient altruist, whose whole point is to ensure that the money they give is given where it will be used most effectively.

[roo_ster]

Be aware that "efficient altruists" tend to be far-lefty loons.  As in Peter Singer of "kill the baby before X number of months after birth is no more morally encumbered than killing a chicken" looney left.

And the author thinks the following comment credible and changes his argument in response:

In some cases, I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a market inefficiency in morality. The general reason for this is that I’m utilitarian and most people aren’t. Most humans have revealed preferences to care more about people close to them in time and space and mind-shape, all of which I reject. So it’s totally plausible that given my values, the most important interventions are massively underfunded.

There’s good evidence for this. Most Americans happily (or unknowingly) torture and kill dozens of animals every year. The total spending on existential risk reduction is a tiny, tiny proportion of what it would be if the world cared about humans a thousand years in the future as much as we cared about humans now. And the ratio of spending on local versus international charities speaks for itself.

That’s the more polite reason that I believe that there’s an inefficient market in morality. The less polite version is that most people aren’t strategic or selfless, and their implicit main motivation in morality is demonstrating that they’re trustworthy and generous. I think it’s pretty obvious that very few people are actually trying to help others in a cause-neutral way. So I think it’s very likely that I can “beat the market”, as it were.

[MechAg94]

Psst... the author is an efficient altruist, whose whole point is to ensure that the money they give is given where it will be used most effectively.

My point is that in the micro (individually or locally), that may be done.  In the macro (with everyone or with Big Govt), that is near impossible.    

I guess I see it as similar to arguments I have heard supporting welfare and non-retirement social security benefits.  Too many people start justifying the waste if even a small amount of the funding helps someone.  Charity today is very big business and there are a whole lot of people that make a lot of money playing middle man.....and that doesn't even count the outright fraud.  

[MechAg94]

Be aware that "efficient altruists" tend to be far-lefty loons.  As in Peter Singer of "kill the baby before X number of months after birth is no more morally encumbered than killing a chicken" looney left.

And the author thinks the following comment credible and changes his argument in response:

Okay, I hadn't read the link yet which probably would have helped. 

Reading your quote, that sort of makes my point.  He completely ignores the waste and fraud in just about any charity that is more than local with international charities generally being the worst and goes straight to the assumption that people only care about people close to them.  If a guy gives $10 or a bag of canned food to a local charity, there is a better chance all or most of it will actually go to someone who could use it.  If they give $10 to an international charity, they can probably expect that the large majority will be used up in administration and that is assuming the local govt doesn't interfere. 

[makattak]

Be aware that "efficient altruists" tend to be far-lefty loons.  As in Peter Singer of "kill the baby before X number of months after birth is no more morally encumbered than killing a chicken" looney left.

And the author thinks the following comment credible and changes his argument in response:

That was what I found most impressive. He was clearly left-leaning, at least, AND sympathetic, at least, to the lefty loons.

Yet, he had enough awareness to understand his philosophical and political opponents might have valid arguments, but also that his allies arguments may be catastrophic in their actual results. That is very rare amongst those of his philosophical bent.

[roo_ster]

That was what I found most impressive. He was clearly left-leaning, at least, AND sympathetic, at least, to the lefty loons.

Yet, he had enough awareness to understand his philosophical and political opponents might have valid arguments, but also that his allies arguments may be catastrophic in their actual results. That is very rare amongst those of his philosophical bent.

Yep.  Just wanted to make sure folk knew what they were getting into.

[MechAg94]

Yep.  Just wanted to make sure folk knew what they were getting into.

Yes, he seemed to be more aware of the potential results and honest about it which is unusual.  I appreciate his awareness that his side suffers a lot from the arrogant viewpoint of "we are right and rational while everyone else is stupid".

Only reading one post, I am not sure how far he goes to separate private efforts versus efforts to get govt to do stuff.

[Perd Hapley]

I read the article, and then a couple of other articles that it linked to, and that part that struck me most was quoted in the OP:

Your differences are foundational assumptions and methodological disagreements about what sorts of issues to focus on, not simple “he made an arithmetic error when calculating the effects” style obvious superiority.

This is the salient fact about so many political/cultural debates today; and makes them more like shouting matches between groups that speak different languages, than actual debates. Or as Stephen McAlpine would have it, it's cage-fighting; not fencing.

http://stephenmcalpine.com/2015/06/01/athen-is-fencing-babylon-is-a-cage-fight/comment-page-1/

I've been chewing on the meat of this latter article for months now, as well as his other blog posts. Good stuff, though much of it is inside-baseball church talk, and not so interesting (probably not even accessible) to outsiders. (I've also learned some Australian and/or Britishisms.)