A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty • Hacker News Board

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#201

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

ar0 wrote: post #136

Mirioron wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Using $1.90 as the baseline to beat is too low for what we would consider as being out of poverty. It's called absolute poverty for a reason. Just because you're above the absolute poverty threshold doesn't mean you're not poor anymore. It just means that you can minimally survive. Whether you're poor or not depends on the society around you, because poverty determines how well you can participate in society. He…

> Yeah, it was just a coincidence that when China stated opening up their markets that their quality of life improved immensely and hundreds of millions are lifted out of extreme poverty. When you're talking about economic success in general then you can't forget the ex-Soviet states either. The ones that embraced free markets the most recovered the most. China is interesting because you can really use it both ways:…

> The ex-Soviet economies that have done best are those that have joined the European Union, which most people especially on the American right would not exactly call a free market paradise.

Compared to the Soviet days, I think that most, even on the American right, would consider the EU to be quite free market.

It's not an absolute thing. The difference from "almost totally state planned" to "not as free as we think it should be" matters. It changes outcomes quite a bit. Some think that outcomes would be even better with more freedom, but I think most people - even on the American right - understand that the EU is vastly different from the Soviet economy.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#202

Post by throwaway47861 » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #194

grecy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> primarily social/cultural ones, that will halt the relative development of those countries, sooner or later. Hans addresses this in the book, actually. What you said has no basis in fact, and makes no sense. Do you think people said exactly the same thing about Sweden a generation ago? Why / why not? We in the West have this completely-made-up assumption that "they" can't develop like "we" did, with absolutely no g…

> We in the West have this completely-made-up assumption that "they" can't develop like "we" did, with absolutely no grounding in fact. Some people do, that's true. It also seems to be true that some people have an assumption, not at all completely grounded in fact, that "all" people can and will develop "like we did". Two problems I see with this belief are that it is inherently speculative (a prediction of the futu…

> ...but Westerners have a habit of classifying dissenting opinions as "just wrong" and dismissing/ignoring them.

Fully agreed. This is also extremely prevalent in any economic discussions here in HN where most of the first-world dwellers are cozying up their minds with the generic statement "it is all getting better on average" which I think is utter BS.

As a guy who has been to pretty poor parts of the world and lives in a country that touts any small bill that will benefit zero common folk -- but is always advertised as such for 30 years now -- I have to say, most first-world population is tragically misinformed on how are the average people around the world living.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#203

Post by zeroname » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

throwaway47861 wrote: post #198

spandrew wrote: post #169

It's a bit frustrating to read his follow-up letter because it largely ignores the root counterpoints Pinker made in favour of pushing the data integrity angle. Hans spends an awful lot of time poking holes in the historical accuracy of income data. But Pinker states in very basic, understandable terms that the benchmark isn't the point — setting the benchmark at $7 or 100k doesn't stop the fact that wealthy has tren…

> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely mak…

> You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world.

The point isn't that things aren't awful, but that used to be more awful and continue to be less awful, despite popular perception to the contrary.

> You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better.

It is getting better.

> Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition.

Again, that's not the point.

> But sure, "on average things are better" -- and even this outlandish claim is proven wrong by this article, with hard data.

No it isn't. The article actually cites data showing that poverty is going down, just not as fast as "extreme poverty". On average, things are getting better. It's not an outlandish claim. By almost any measure of human welfare, things are getting better, on the average.

Hickel's issue isn't so even so much arguing that poverty isn't going down, but that "neoliberalism" had nothing to do with it. Make of that what you want, but that's Hickel's pet peeve, not Pinker's.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#204

Post by zeroname » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

cc439 wrote: post #189

grecy wrote: post #13

One of the most amazing things I learned reading the excellent "Factfullness" by Hans Rosling [1] is that the poorest countries in the world are currently improving faster than any country ever did, at any point in history. That's correct - countries like Lesotho and Central African Republic are improving faster than his home country of Sweden ever did, at any time. In only his lifetime Sweden went from having an inf…

>In only his lifetime Sweden went from having an infant mortality rate similar to that of the poorest countries today, to being one of the world leaders. This simply isn't true. Between 1900 and 1905, Sweden's infant mortality rate was merely 2.3 per 1,000 live births [1] which is basically the same as they currently report (2.6 per 1,000 [2]) according to the CIA world factbook. Compare that with Lesotho's rate of 4…

> This simply isn't true. Between 1900 and 1905, Sweden's infant mortality rate was merely 2.3 per 1,000 live births [1] which is basically the same as they currently report (2.6 per 1,000 [2])

You're mixing up maternal mortality (the mother dies) with infant mortality (the child dies).

It would be quite remarkable indeed if somehow medicine in Sweden today achieved a slightly worse infant mortality than at the beginning of the previous century.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#205

Post by haberman » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

throwaway47861 wrote: post #198

spandrew wrote: post #169

It's a bit frustrating to read his follow-up letter because it largely ignores the root counterpoints Pinker made in favour of pushing the data integrity angle. Hans spends an awful lot of time poking holes in the historical accuracy of income data. But Pinker states in very basic, understandable terms that the benchmark isn't the point — setting the benchmark at $7 or 100k doesn't stop the fact that wealthy has tren…

> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely mak…

> I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better.

These two statements do not contradict each other, at all.

It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to be.

People seem to hate Pinker because they interpret his words as saying their suffering doesn't matter. There is absolutely nothing about his argument that suggests this. It is exactly because suffering is so terrible that it is a good thing that there is less suffering now than in the past.

Bill Gates gets lumped in with Pinker here, and Gates is literally putting his money where his mouth is on this. He wouldn't invest his massive fortune into improving the world if his position was "things are great now, stop complaining."

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#206

Post by huffmsa » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

flippin-burgers wrote: post #150

huffmsa wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm used to a hot opener making people engage the rest of the points. Real life (debates in pubs) doesn't have an "I find this disagreeable" button.

This isn't a pub, and if you're "used to a hot opener" then surely you're used to people seeing you as a jerk for persistently making provocative and racist remarks.

English isn't a race, buddy. If you're going to insist that I'm an "-ist" at least be correct.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#207

Post by titanomachy » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

falcor84 wrote: post #191

spandrew wrote: post #169

It's a bit frustrating to read his follow-up letter because it largely ignores the root counterpoints Pinker made in favour of pushing the data integrity angle. Hans spends an awful lot of time poking holes in the historical accuracy of income data. But Pinker states in very basic, understandable terms that the benchmark isn't the point — setting the benchmark at $7 or 100k doesn't stop the fact that wealthy has tren…

I somewhat disagree, Hans does spend some time in this article refuting the claim that benchmark doesn't matter. In particular, he shows charts demonstrating how raising the benchmark changes the result.

Who is Hans? Isn't this article by Jason Hickel?

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#208

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #185

PixyMisa wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bhutan? Great, unless you're LGBT, in which case they lock you up. Or you're a journalist and write something critical of the government, in which case they lock you up. Or you practice a religion other than Buddhism or Hinduism, in which case they lock you up. Or you want to wear Nepalese clothing, in which case they skip right past locking you up and simply revoke your citizenship and kick you out of the country.

They were talking about happiness, you are talking about personal freedom. Two different things. It's possible that people are most happy when minorities are done away with. Not exactly what I would prefer, but it's still possible.

I doubt that the minorities are most happy...

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#209

Post by throwaway47861 » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

zeroname wrote: post #203

throwaway47861 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely mak…

> You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. The point isn't that things aren't awful , but that used to be more awful and continue to be less awful , despite popular perception to the contrary. > You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. It is ge…

> > Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition.

> Again, that's not the point.

If that's not the point then any other discussion is tragically irrelevant.

The "global average is better" is a meaningless assertion. Everybody in the world has roughly one testicle. How useful is that piece of info?

And how useful is the "global average is getting better" to people who want to raise kids well-fed but currently cannot?

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#210

Post by throwaway47861 » Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

haberman wrote: post #205

throwaway47861 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely mak…

> I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. These two statements do not contradict each other, at all. It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to…

> It is possible for two things to simultaneously be true: things are awful for many people, AND things overall are better than they used to be.

That is correct and I agree.

What I am saying is that the global average getting better is a skewed and rather meaningless metric. The fact that 100_000 EU/USA citizes are slighly better off at the cost 1_000_000 asians -- random numbers to demonstrate how an imbalance can be evened out -- does not mean that humanity's economy is getting better. Not at all.

We should strive for everybody to be ever so slightly better, not that the average people that are extremely poor number to go lower, because that doesn't mean anything as the author proved -- $1.90/day for food as a measure for poverty? Laughable and irresponsible. Please try it yourself for a month and let's talk again.

Hence my angry reaction to the claim that the global average numbers are entirely pointless and non-informative. The world is too big, too much is going on. You cannot even know why something fell down by 0.1%.

> People seem to hate Pinker because they interpret his words as saying their suffering doesn't matter.

I am one of these people. And I will stand by it. Middle-class well-to-do authors do not belong in discussions like these. Go recruit people from the suffering countries. We the Westerners have almost zero credibility when talking about poverty. At least I am realistic enough to be acceptive of that.