Ashley Rindsberg on Wikipedia's ownership; Cremieux Recueil on classic social psychology; Greg Lukianoff treads into social psychology; Alice Evans on women vs. profit; Ruxandra Teslo on same
Re non-profits, a quote attributed to Eric Hoffer: ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’
1) Maybe you can't "dismiss progressivism as a mental disorder" but you can dismiss it as human frailty....as shallowness.
2) Maybe "you have to deal with people’s beliefs on their own terms as legitimate points of view"... but you can question whether they truly are "beliefs" in any meaningful sense. For someone to genuinely have a 'belief' about something - impending climate catatrophe or racial unfairnesses for example - they would need to have invested some energy in accruing evidence of these things. But how many actually do this? Very few I suspect, compared to those who simply notice that they are social signals 'with benefits' so to speak.
I think this is a case of chalk and cheese. Religions do not base themselves on rationalisations or empirical evidence. The 'beliefs' I cited as examples very much do.
All religions say they are true; they accurately describe the world. They also say that their dogma makes sense; it fits together rationally. The leaders of the religion say that if you "invest[ed] some energy in accruing evidence of [the religion]" (which they of course have done), you will see that it is true. You will truly believe.
There is a constant definitional controversy in the study of religion. What is a "religion" and what is a "cult"? Robert Heinlein, who thought all religions were empirically untrue, had a cynical take.
Most people, he said, stayed with the religion they were born into or moved into one that was good for them socially. It was comfortable. Their belief was low-level, without much thought. This was "religion".
But some people decided that the old religion was wrong. They learned about and accepted a new one. They thought about it and compared it to their old religion. They decided it did a better job of describing the world. These people really believe believed in the dogma (which for Heinlein meant that they believed nonsense). So for Heinlein, any religion you converted into because you Cunningham believed it was a "cult".
We'll have to agree to disagree. People don't casually embrace a religious conversion because they keep hearing about it on 'the news'. It involves life-changing commitment. Chalk and cheese.
On today's Wikipedia would be instantly recognized by Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
I also think this is exactly how "AI" will be used- to crush dissent by rewriting all of history and knowledge or, perhaps more accurately, by removing the ambiguity in favor of a state controlled narrative on all things.
Re: "Be wary of any study that makes it appear that a social problem can be solved by manipulating a single variable. Poverty is too complex to be addressed using one variable at a time. So is education. So is authoritarianism."
Wise and true -- if what one seeks is a *solution*.
However, it is reasonable to prioritize a specific change (i.e., manipulation of a single variable), if one seeks (modestly) to make a dent in a social problem.
Here are examples of a priority manipulation that might (or might not) help:
You have advocated a modest UBI in place of means-tested welfare in order to reduce the tax penalty on the working poor.
Milton Friedman advocated school choice (vouchers + competition) in order to improve education (or at least to reduce the cost of primary education).
Similarly, exit mechanisms would seem likely to reduce authoritarianism. This would require either political decentralization or unbundling of public services. (Another Kling priority idea.)
These are not solutions, but mechanisms that probably would make a substantial dent in the problems.
I agree. People, especially with a motivated mission, often exaggerate to say solution but generally there is a recognition that however important one variable might be, it doesn't solve a complex issue.
The original Wikipedia governance model just wasn’t scaling. Wiki drama was a common butt of jokes on the 2000s internet and predictions of the site’s demise were not at all uncommon.
I see way fewer pages now that are unreadable due to edit wars or misguided attempts at compromise, so they must be doing something right over there.
Many conservatives argue that it would be better if most or all social welfare programs were provided privately rather than through government. How do you square that with your desire to get rid of non-profits?
Keep it in government?
Less social welfare support overall but still mostly in governement?
Do your think 1 on 1 help would increase significantly if there were less government support?
"Whatever the stated intention of non-profits, they are often ineffective at best and corrupt at worst."
First, if it's "often" and not "always" then it's not "best" and "worst." Leaving that aside, I agree with most or all of your concerns. I have no doubt that some non-profits do more harm than good but note that plenty of for-profit businesses do more harm than good too. And sometimes they continue for a really long time.
That said, I have five examples that might illustrate weaknesses in your global dislike of non-profits.
1. Mutuals are a type of non-profit. Maybe you are excluding them since they aren't 501c and typically or never have donors once established.
2. Maybe you also don't mean churches but what would it mean for them not to be non-profit?
3. Whatever their problems, I have a hard time not preferring non-profit schools over for-profit. Maybe public schools are somewhere in the middle. Would we really prefer just having for-profit colleges?
4. I don't think there's any doubt that the highest quality care is at non-profit hospitals. There's a good chance care would be better at for-profits if non-profits didn't exist but I don't think it would match what we have.
5. Your complaints of non-profits seem most relevant to larger ones. What about small ones? We have a local one called Crisis Nursery. Parents can leave their kids when issues arise. Currently it is in a building donated by a non-profit hospital. Maybe the hospital benefits from having a place for children when family members are hospitalized, IDK. Either way, I have a hard time seeing how a for-profit is better here.
Arnold, I don't disagree with your view on the evils of non-profits, but can you or any readers identify any "good" non-profits? Surely not all of them are nefarious. I have casually looked at some of the so-called charity rating sites but have my hesitation about relying on their evaluations. So far, my best bet for non-profit donation would be churches or synagogues.
Probably best benefit comes from small, local ones "staffed" by people who are doing it for free. The various civic groups like Elks, Eagles, Ruritans, etc.
Yeah, you could probably develop some kind of metric for this. IE, once the organization's full time fundraising staff reaches, say, five people, it is time to think about letting someone else finance their activities.
Probably so, but you could consider exceptions for certain capital intensive non-profits, like the upstart U of Austin or the American Prairie Reserve (I support both, albeit with three digit annual donation amounts).
Re non-profits, a quote attributed to Eric Hoffer: ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’
1) Maybe you can't "dismiss progressivism as a mental disorder" but you can dismiss it as human frailty....as shallowness.
2) Maybe "you have to deal with people’s beliefs on their own terms as legitimate points of view"... but you can question whether they truly are "beliefs" in any meaningful sense. For someone to genuinely have a 'belief' about something - impending climate catatrophe or racial unfairnesses for example - they would need to have invested some energy in accruing evidence of these things. But how many actually do this? Very few I suspect, compared to those who simply notice that they are social signals 'with benefits' so to speak.
That's a rather narrow definition of "believe". If that's the definition, then the vast majority of followers of a religion don't really "believe".
I think this is a case of chalk and cheese. Religions do not base themselves on rationalisations or empirical evidence. The 'beliefs' I cited as examples very much do.
All religions say they are true; they accurately describe the world. They also say that their dogma makes sense; it fits together rationally. The leaders of the religion say that if you "invest[ed] some energy in accruing evidence of [the religion]" (which they of course have done), you will see that it is true. You will truly believe.
Not chalk and cheese, more like cheddar and brie.
There is a constant definitional controversy in the study of religion. What is a "religion" and what is a "cult"? Robert Heinlein, who thought all religions were empirically untrue, had a cynical take.
Most people, he said, stayed with the religion they were born into or moved into one that was good for them socially. It was comfortable. Their belief was low-level, without much thought. This was "religion".
But some people decided that the old religion was wrong. They learned about and accepted a new one. They thought about it and compared it to their old religion. They decided it did a better job of describing the world. These people really believe believed in the dogma (which for Heinlein meant that they believed nonsense). So for Heinlein, any religion you converted into because you Cunningham believed it was a "cult".
We'll have to agree to disagree. People don't casually embrace a religious conversion because they keep hearing about it on 'the news'. It involves life-changing commitment. Chalk and cheese.
Yes, but anti-progressivism can seem even shallower.
On today's Wikipedia would be instantly recognized by Orwell: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
I also think this is exactly how "AI" will be used- to crush dissent by rewriting all of history and knowledge or, perhaps more accurately, by removing the ambiguity in favor of a state controlled narrative on all things.
Re: "Be wary of any study that makes it appear that a social problem can be solved by manipulating a single variable. Poverty is too complex to be addressed using one variable at a time. So is education. So is authoritarianism."
Wise and true -- if what one seeks is a *solution*.
However, it is reasonable to prioritize a specific change (i.e., manipulation of a single variable), if one seeks (modestly) to make a dent in a social problem.
Here are examples of a priority manipulation that might (or might not) help:
You have advocated a modest UBI in place of means-tested welfare in order to reduce the tax penalty on the working poor.
Milton Friedman advocated school choice (vouchers + competition) in order to improve education (or at least to reduce the cost of primary education).
Similarly, exit mechanisms would seem likely to reduce authoritarianism. This would require either political decentralization or unbundling of public services. (Another Kling priority idea.)
These are not solutions, but mechanisms that probably would make a substantial dent in the problems.
[edited to correct typos]
I agree. People, especially with a motivated mission, often exaggerate to say solution but generally there is a recognition that however important one variable might be, it doesn't solve a complex issue.
Great curating, Dr Kling! Fresh contrarian thinking all round, with some ongoing themes. Seriously -- Thanks!
The original Wikipedia governance model just wasn’t scaling. Wiki drama was a common butt of jokes on the 2000s internet and predictions of the site’s demise were not at all uncommon.
I see way fewer pages now that are unreadable due to edit wars or misguided attempts at compromise, so they must be doing something right over there.
If idealistic people were more inclined to work for profit, that would help fix non-profits.
Many conservatives argue that it would be better if most or all social welfare programs were provided privately rather than through government. How do you square that with your desire to get rid of non-profits?
Keep it in government?
Less social welfare support overall but still mostly in governement?
Do your think 1 on 1 help would increase significantly if there were less government support?
Some other alternative?
"Whatever the stated intention of non-profits, they are often ineffective at best and corrupt at worst."
First, if it's "often" and not "always" then it's not "best" and "worst." Leaving that aside, I agree with most or all of your concerns. I have no doubt that some non-profits do more harm than good but note that plenty of for-profit businesses do more harm than good too. And sometimes they continue for a really long time.
That said, I have five examples that might illustrate weaknesses in your global dislike of non-profits.
1. Mutuals are a type of non-profit. Maybe you are excluding them since they aren't 501c and typically or never have donors once established.
2. Maybe you also don't mean churches but what would it mean for them not to be non-profit?
3. Whatever their problems, I have a hard time not preferring non-profit schools over for-profit. Maybe public schools are somewhere in the middle. Would we really prefer just having for-profit colleges?
4. I don't think there's any doubt that the highest quality care is at non-profit hospitals. There's a good chance care would be better at for-profits if non-profits didn't exist but I don't think it would match what we have.
5. Your complaints of non-profits seem most relevant to larger ones. What about small ones? We have a local one called Crisis Nursery. Parents can leave their kids when issues arise. Currently it is in a building donated by a non-profit hospital. Maybe the hospital benefits from having a place for children when family members are hospitalized, IDK. Either way, I have a hard time seeing how a for-profit is better here.
Arnold, I don't disagree with your view on the evils of non-profits, but can you or any readers identify any "good" non-profits? Surely not all of them are nefarious. I have casually looked at some of the so-called charity rating sites but have my hesitation about relying on their evaluations. So far, my best bet for non-profit donation would be churches or synagogues.
small charities with a funding from the community, like churches
Probably best benefit comes from small, local ones "staffed" by people who are doing it for free. The various civic groups like Elks, Eagles, Ruritans, etc.
Yeah, you could probably develop some kind of metric for this. IE, once the organization's full time fundraising staff reaches, say, five people, it is time to think about letting someone else finance their activities.
Agreed except I'd say it's time to look closely at letting go once fundraising staff is more than one paid person.
Probably so, but you could consider exceptions for certain capital intensive non-profits, like the upstart U of Austin or the American Prairie Reserve (I support both, albeit with three digit annual donation amounts).
Absolutely. Looking closely doesn't mean ending support.