Yeah, I've heard this critique too and I'm not sure how to address it.

Like, the whole point of a 'study' is to test things out. That's temporary by design.

But yes, it's a giant confound too.

I guess what the DBIS showed is that the results are not spectacular and automatic. They are slight-ish, grey, muddled.

Like, if UBI was a panacea like insulin was to diabetics, then we'd expect a huge result and difference. But it wasn't, and that a good result to report out too. I just wish there was a silver bullet.

▲

srcreigh 2 days ago | parent [-]

If they did a study about insulin where they give it to you for 1 year then take it away, the results wouldn’t be positive.

▲

Balgair 2 days ago | parent [-]

Oh no, they would very much be positive. You'd know that insulin would have saved every one of their lives. Even a very small does of insulin is just that good.

But these studies aren't like that. They aren't that good. UBI isn't that good. That's what I get out of these studies.

	▲	srcreigh 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If insulin was already GA, and you gave it to people without insulin, and they believed that you’d stop giving it to them in a few months. The people would be healthy temporarily while preparing for immanent suffering. The study would likely report mixed psychological benefits. I hope the analogy makes sense. A better UBI study would bucket people into a lifetime monthly payout (with inflation increase etc). Give them an opportunity to invest in their lives.