{"items": [{"author": "Noah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=664479066502", "anchor": "fb-664479066502", "service": "fb", "text": "Incidentally, there is evidence that height and intelligence are correlated. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-014-9644-z", "timestamp": "1403104876"}, {"author": "Jeannine", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=664552120102", "anchor": "fb-664552120102", "service": "fb", "text": "Does that study account for how malnourishment can affect growth and intelligence?", "timestamp": "1403145289"}, {"author": "Mars", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665722295062", "anchor": "fb-665722295062", "service": "fb", "text": "Hmmm... <br>The marginal dollar value argument, does that imply that when giving to GiveDirectly, they should disperse your donation among as many people as they can?<br>Do they actually do that?", "timestamp": "1403791766"}, {"author": "Jeff&nbsp;Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665725808022", "anchor": "fb-665725808022", "service": "fb", "text": "@Marius: I'm not sure how far down the marginal dollar argument goes.  Is giving $1 to 100 people better than $100 to one?  I bet there are levels below which there just gets to be too much overhead.", "timestamp": "1403794231"}, {"author": "Mars", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665725947742", "anchor": "fb-665725947742", "service": "fb", "text": "Yeah, I'm not sure either. The overhead is a good point though.", "timestamp": "1403794316"}, {"author": "Christopher", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665807818672", "anchor": "fb-665807818672", "service": "fb", "text": "On the marginal dollars, not every purchasable good is marginal. For instance, if it costs 1000 dollars to get a mechanic's education in a third world country but your limited funds means either half the eligible candidates get mechanics degrees or everyone gets 500 dollars, there is greater value in giving half the population enough money to become income genrators.", "timestamp": "1403844454"}, {"author": "Jeff&nbsp;Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665821211832", "anchor": "fb-665821211832", "service": "fb", "text": "@Christopher: yes, though in most economies there are multiple ways to invest that money, so there's not so likely to be a hard difference between $1k and $900.", "timestamp": "1403870702"}, {"author": "Mars", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/664471586492?comment_id=665821586082", "anchor": "fb-665821586082", "service": "fb", "text": "@Christopher, in the dillema you posit, giving half the population enough money to get an education sounds like the best choice, of course. On the other hand you could imagine a situation where you give 500 dollars to each person who _can't quite_ pay for education. They will add the second 500 themselves, and you'll suddenly have twice as much income generators as before!<br><br>Now I'm not sure which of these hypotheticals is most accurate in which situations, but in general we _do_ have evidence that smaller amounts distributed to more people does more good. Barring any alternative evidence, I don't think I should update on your hypothetical yet.", "timestamp": "1403871084"}]}