5 ms·

You're right up to the point where you believe that the government should be dispensing cash to the parents. The parents must become self-sufficient if they're

You're right up to the point where you believe that the government should be dispensing cash to the parents. The parents must become self-sufficient if they're to adequately govern their home. People in dire need can be presented with necessities, but should probably not be presented with cash. A welfare case worker should be in charge of identifying "necessities" and given broad leeway to do so, so the family can lift out.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Did you read the article? Your point seems to be in direct contradiction to it. And it seems to be based entirely upon your own ideas with no supporting evidence.
kragen 11y ago
While your abstract theory is very interesting, it's not really addressing my point, which is that, in practice, parents mostly seem to do a better job than welfare case workers of identifying necessities and allocating money to them. I was giving some anecdotes to clarify how this works in practice, but also I think this article provides another useful piece of empirical evidence showing that it does. So maybe instead of coming up with social prescriptions based on abstract bullshit theories that sound good to you, which is because they flatter your preconceptions or because you've heard them repeated frequently, you should open your eyes to the things that are actually happening in the actual world, and see what happens in reality.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  I agree that parents are better at determining their needs, but that's why they need to become self-sufficient. While they're not self-sufficient, they should be given only non-cash contributions so that they can survive while becoming self-sufficient, which makes them truly free to make determinations for their family. A parent can't really say he/she is doing that while they're on anyone's dole. I've seen the model I've advocated work well dozens of times in reality. Please understand that all of the groveling before "empirical results" is thinly-veiled hypocrisy. How many times does someone see a dense academic document and say "Oh, this totally changes my opinion on this controversial issue"? Almost never; if they agree with the outcome, they beat everyone over the head with it and call them denialist for not accepting it, and if they disagree, they insist that the outcome is biased, that there were "flaws in the methodology", etc. If I did give you an article, study, or paper that supported my claims, don't pretend like it would matter. 98% of the time, people will accept propaganda that supports their existing opinion on controversial issues, and nothing else. It's why our media is the way it is.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
I'm going to guess you're assuming that 'non-self-sufficient' parents are so because of some of their moral failings. Like they aren't "hard-working enough" or "responsible enough". If I guessed wrong, then feel free to ignore the rest of my comment. If you could assume, for just a moment, that those moral failings are in fact mostly results of external causes - like environment, continued bad material situation, stress, perhaps bad upbringing - would you then, in that world, see giving direct support as preferable to waiting for people in need to "get their shit together"? If so, then consider that we're likely to live in that latter world - continued studies of human behaviour show that we're much more influenced by our conditions than our inner character. This is actually pretty positive, because it means we can actually fix things on a systemic level (and it also means things can be broken on it).
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  As I point out elsewhere, lots of folks (backpackers, college students) suffer similar material deprivation, environment and stress. Yet they don't make the same bad choices. Nearly all of India lives in far worse conditions than American poor folks and also don't make the same bad choices. Your theory doesn't seem to be predicting the world very well. would you then, in that world, see giving direct support as preferable to waiting for people in need to "get their shit together"? The post you are responding to explicitly favors giving direct support - just in-kind rather than cash. ...continued studies of human behaviour show that we're much more influenced by our conditions than our inner character. [citation needed]
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > As I point out elsewhere, lots of folks (backpackers, college students) suffer similar material deprivation, environment and stress. Yet they don't make the same bad choices. Short-term, voluntary material deprivation and stress, both of which you can end instantly at any time you want if you so choose, isn't the same thing as poverty. > Nearly all of India lives in far worse conditions than American poor folks and also don't make the same bad choices. Exactly my point. No sane person would call nearly all of Indians a nation of lazy, irresponsible people, and yet it's a popular sentiment towards the poor in western countries. I think my theory predicts the world pretty good. > The post you are responding to explicitly favors giving direct support - just in-kind rather than cash. I should have wrote "unconditional support", by which I mean support that doesn't make assumptions about what the helpee really needs based on helper's view of personal virtue. > [citation needed] Start with "fundamental attribution error" and continue from there; it's pretty well-studied area.

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Did you read the article? Your point seems to be in direct contradiction to it. And it seems to be based entirely upon your own ideas with no supporting evidence.

kragen 11y ago

While your abstract theory is very interesting, it's not really addressing my point, which is that, in practice, parents mostly seem to do a better job than welfare case workers of identifying necessities and allocating money to them. I was giving some anecdotes to clarify how this works in practice, but also I think this article provides another useful piece of empirical evidence showing that it does. So maybe instead of coming up with social prescriptions based on abstract bullshit theories that sound good to you, which is because they flatter your preconceptions or because you've heard them repeated frequently, you should open your eyes to the things that are actually happening in the actual world, and see what happens in reality.

cookiecaper 11y ago
I agree that parents are better at determining their needs, but that's why they need to become self-sufficient. While they're not self-sufficient, they should be given only non-cash contributions so that they can survive while becoming self-sufficient, which makes them truly free to make determinations for their family. A parent can't really say he/she is doing that while they're on anyone's dole. I've seen the model I've advocated work well dozens of times in reality. Please understand that all of the groveling before "empirical results" is thinly-veiled hypocrisy. How many times does someone see a dense academic document and say "Oh, this totally changes my opinion on this controversial issue"? Almost never; if they agree with the outcome, they beat everyone over the head with it and call them denialist for not accepting it, and if they disagree, they insist that the outcome is biased, that there were "flaws in the methodology", etc. If I did give you an article, study, or paper that supported my claims, don't pretend like it would matter. 98% of the time, people will accept propaganda that supports their existing opinion on controversial issues, and nothing else. It's why our media is the way it is.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

I'm going to guess you're assuming that 'non-self-sufficient' parents are so because of some of their moral failings. Like they aren't "hard-working enough" or "responsible enough". If I guessed wrong, then feel free to ignore the rest of my comment. If you could assume, for just a moment, that those moral failings are in fact mostly results of external causes - like environment, continued bad material situation, stress, perhaps bad upbringing - would you then, in that world, see giving direct support as preferable to waiting for people in need to "get their shit together"? If so, then consider that we're likely to live in that latter world - continued studies of human behaviour show that we're much more influenced by our conditions than our inner character. This is actually pretty positive, because it means we can actually fix things on a systemic level (and it also means things can be broken on it).

yummyfajitas 11y ago
As I point out elsewhere, lots of folks (backpackers, college students) suffer similar material deprivation, environment and stress. Yet they don't make the same bad choices. Nearly all of India lives in far worse conditions than American poor folks and also don't make the same bad choices. Your theory doesn't seem to be predicting the world very well. would you then, in that world, see giving direct support as preferable to waiting for people in need to "get their shit together"? The post you are responding to explicitly favors giving direct support - just in-kind rather than cash. ...continued studies of human behaviour show that we're much more influenced by our conditions than our inner character. [citation needed]
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > As I point out elsewhere, lots of folks (backpackers, college students) suffer similar material deprivation, environment and stress. Yet they don't make the same bad choices. Short-term, voluntary material deprivation and stress, both of which you can end instantly at any time you want if you so choose, isn't the same thing as poverty. > Nearly all of India lives in far worse conditions than American poor folks and also don't make the same bad choices. Exactly my point. No sane person would call nearly all of Indians a nation of lazy, irresponsible people, and yet it's a popular sentiment towards the poor in western countries. I think my theory predicts the world pretty good. > The post you are responding to explicitly favors giving direct support - just in-kind rather than cash. I should have wrote "unconditional support", by which I mean support that doesn't make assumptions about what the helpee really needs based on helper's view of personal virtue. > [citation needed] Start with "fundamental attribution error" and continue from there; it's pretty well-studied area.