Posted on 08/19/2013 8:17:56 AM PDT by Edmunds mom
If social science, as employed by Americas largest foundations over the last century, were so wonderfully productive of human flourishing, why dont Kramer and Brest toss out numerous instances of its successes with such non-bacterial human problems as unwed motherhood, the declining work force participation of men, or income inequality? Why havent foundations conquered those challenges as straightforwardly as cholera and hookworm? Could it be because human beings differ in kind from bacteria and parasitic nematodes?
(Excerpt) Read more at philanthropydaily.com ...
This article explains why free markets and ordinary citizens help the needy far better than social engineers, whether the engineers are federal or foundation bureaucrats.
I did enjoy and appreciate the author's summing up by example the two different approaches:
. . . . For expertise based on local knowledge and experience, imagine a wizened grandmother who didnt finish high school but who has for decades helped neighbors in her struggling neighborhood with her own money and advice on everything from childrearing to drug abuse to job training. For expertise based on broader study and more systematic analysis of data, imagine a twentysomething, unmarried young man fresh out of grad school with multiple graduate degrees paid for by the affluent parents who have provided him a life of ease. Hes crunched social science numbers from all over the world but just yesterday stepped foot for the first time in the grandmothers neighborhood.Is Schambras inclination to favor the grandmothers wisdom over the young mans social science merely a matter of taste, like a preference for barbecue over sushi?
And I was disheartened by the author's reference to "the appalling support by numerous large foundations for eugenics." I guess eugenics is like the hydra, the many-headed monster. As I understand it, eugenics was very big among the ruling class (to target the "country class," of course) in the 1920s and 1930s -- until Hitler "gave it a bad name." I didn't realize it was making a powerful come-back!
I did enjoy and appreciate the author's summing up by example the two different approaches:
. . . . For expertise based on local knowledge and experience, imagine a wizened grandmother who didnt finish high school but who has for decades helped neighbors in her struggling neighborhood with her own money and advice on everything from childrearing to drug abuse to job training. For expertise based on broader study and more systematic analysis of data, imagine a twentysomething, unmarried young man fresh out of grad school with multiple graduate degrees paid for by the affluent parents who have provided him a life of ease. Hes crunched social science numbers from all over the world but just yesterday stepped foot for the first time in the grandmothers neighborhood.Is Schambras inclination to favor the grandmothers wisdom over the young mans social science merely a matter of taste, like a preference for barbecue over sushi?
And I was disheartened by the author's reference to "the appalling support by numerous large foundations for eugenics." I guess eugenics is like the hydra, the many-headed monster. As I understand it, eugenics was very big among the ruling class (to target the "country class," of course) in the 1920s and 1930s -- until Hitler "gave it a bad name." I didn't realize it was making a powerful come-back!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.