What I’ve been doing
I feel I have to provide some context for this update to make sense. So, last year, I soft-launched a scientific non-profit. You can read this two-pager to get a quick overview of the kind of research we’re doing. I’m currently in the process of getting it formally registered. Right now, there are two full-time research associates and one intern on the team. We also work with two more senior researchers on a project-to-project basis. So far, we have managed to put 5 preprints out the year, with the most recent one published earlier this week.
What I need to take care of
1-I made a post on LinkedIn in 2024 where I talked about how microgrants may accelerate behavioral research in Africa. Since then, I have been working on a thought piece to better explain how that could play out. It’s about 60% done but I probably won’t be done with it for another month or so as I’ve been busier than usual in my 9-to-5. I’m just putting it out there as a form of soft committment to complete this piece.
2-In my non-profit, we have about 3 – 4 drafts in different stages of completion. I recognize that I’m somewhat of a bottleneck in the process of getting these drafts ready to be shared as preprints. I plan to move the process along on at least 2 of these drafts next week. Hopefully, I’ll have updates on that front by the time I’m providing updates next week.
What I’ve been reading
1-I’m currently re-reading “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World” by Gregory Clark (2007). Here’s some of the ideas that have resonated so far:
- The technological advances during the industrial age in the 1800s led to short-term increases in income that were eventually lost due to increases in the population
- Prior to the industrial revolution, human economies were subject to the Malthusian trap where things like wars, violence, bad sanitation, and other similar issues reduced population pressures and increased the standards of living for those who survived. Whereas, other interventions, such as stability, order, public health, and similar positive developments caused the population to explode while impoverishing societies
- I had always thought that institutions were the difference between societies that thrive and those merely surviving. Clark argues that it’s not that simple – these institutions were in existence long before the economic explosion in the 1800s happened. If anything, institutions play a minor direct role in the economic performance of a society
- In the period between 1600 and 1800, China and Japan were headed in the same direction as England in terms of values and the kinds of institutions in place. Yet, the Industrial revolution did not take place in the aforementioned Asian nations. Clark argues that this could have played out because English elites had more children that the non-elite, whereas in the Asian societies, the elite there were only marginally more fecund that the non-elite.
- Societies with a long history of settled agarian practices had a cultural advantage that translated into the development of institutions that made economic productivity more possible down the line. Clark goes on to argue that modern production technologies developed by rich countries are designed for labor forces that are disciplined and engaged. To maximize productivity, error rates need to be kept low. When workers are lacking in discipline and engagement, the production technologies only become useful when little is needed from workers – so as to keep error rates as low as possible.
- People’s happiness is often not determined on their own well-being, but how well they are doing relative to some comparison group.
- The substinence income in a Malthusian society doesn’t necessarily mean that the people were teetering on the brink of starvation.
- William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet argued that poverty and misery in the world wasn’t due to human nature but due to weak institutions. Malthus, on the other hand, argued that these vices were not due to institutions, and as a consequence, changes in these institutions cannot fix these issues. He further argued that any efforts to redistribute income to the poor would lead to more poor people in the long run who are maybe employed. In other words, during the Malthusian era (pre-industrial 1800s), good government would have only been able to improve material living standards in the short-run before population growth made things worse for everyone in the long-run.
2-I’ve wanted to get into C. S. Lewis for sometime now. I read a few chapters in Mere Christianity (1952) some weeks ago, but recently pivoted to Screwtape Letters (1942), which I’ve been enjoying. Here’s a few notes from my reading this week:
- When thinking about the spiritual realm, people tend to fall into 2 categories: (1) the materialists who don’t believe in anything beyond what can be sensed with the five senses and accessed through logic; (2) the pie-in-the-sky spiritual idealists who are so engrossed on the unseen that they are useless in day-to-day activities
- Back in Lewis’s day, it was the weekly press that was fighting for man’s attention, today, we have social media and LLMs. The more things change, the more they remain the same!
- Screwtape is a seasoned demon providing his nephew, Wormwood, strategies for depleting the Kingdom of God and converting man to the devil. Screwtape warns Wormwood against using arguments to win over man – because once a man’s cognitive capabilities are awake, he may see the rationale in going the way of God. Personally, I don’t think you can reason your way into faith in God. At some point, reason will have to take the back seat.
- I found it funny how the senior demon advises against using the hard sciences as an argument against the existence of God. I’m assuming it’s because the book was written closer in time to when quantum physics was disrupting what had been known about the nature of reality.
3-I’m also working my way through Myles Munroe’s (2010) Rediscovering the Kingdom but won’t be sharing any notes from that here, at least not yet.
4-Two essays stood out for me this week. The first is Bea’s How to curate your personal canon and the importance of creation of a personal collection of artifacts (books, songs, essays, movies, conversations, etc) that have shaped your worldview – not because they are trending or viral, but because they affected you. The second is Lionel Page’s Why and how political ideas matter where he compares two different views of ideology: Karl Marx’s view which sees ideology as a tool used by the elite to justify inequality; and Max Weber’s view that ideology has independent power to influence society’s behavior. Ma(r)x vs Max.
