3 ms·

What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Interpret his hypothesis in a broad manner; poor folks are pre

• pron 11y ago
  > What facts, measurements or data (if any) would cause you to accept that his hypothesis is true? Anything that provides strong evidence that no human action -- social or technological -- can possibly improve the fortune of the poor. > either genetics or behaviors taught by their parents Even if that were true, I see no claim that they cannot change, so I don't see why the cause matters. That people's starting positions in life are widely unequal is pretty much a given; no one disputes that. In order to make a powerful claim, the only thing that matters is not the source of their misfortune, but that it cannot be changed. Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundation to base it on. I do see people make that (usually implied) assumption, but as I said before, this assumption is no more than a reflection of their values[1]. > These traits will cause them to be poor in any system which rewards hard work, intelligence and the creation of value for other people as a means of gaining income. Only provided that the system doesn't do other things, too (and why can't the poor work hard? I think I work far less hard than a great many number of people far poorer than me). ---- [1]: As to values, I have absolutely no problem with people holding values that say "every man to himself", and we shouldn't go out of our ways to help the poor. I do see a huge problem with people offering social structures that try to curtail whatever power the poor do have, but not the power of the rich. The rich have their money and the poor have their numbers. They can use their numbers for violence or the threat of violence, to achieve better standing, or through a more sophisticated mechanism of democracy, where they impose restrictions on the rich. As a consequence, I see no ethical problem with either a social democracy or anarchy. But I see a big ethical problems with ideologies that prohibit violence, the threat of violence, and any form of organization imposing restrictions, while at the same time placing no restrictions on the use of power that comes from money. Those people are saying, "every man to himself as long as we make sure no one with different sources of power than me can use their's against me".
  • yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Genetic, "wide" social or "close" social (family), I see no such claim being made, and if anyone were to make that claim, I think that they have no good foundation to base it on. Asift made this claim and you asserted it was false. What evidence (if any) would cause you to believe it to be true? Even if that were true, I see no claim that they cannot change, so I don't see why the cause matters. The cause matters because it affects potential solutions. If the cause of a mobility difference between the US and Sweden is economic, then the fix is probably adopting the Swedish economic system (e.g., privatizing education and adopting their sane corporate tax system). If the cause is genetic then the solution would be adopting Swedish genetics by removing from the gene pool anyone of non-Nordic descent. If the cause were close social then the solution would be preventing poor people from transmitting their harmful values and behaviors to their children. Hypothetically, suppose I could provide adequate evidence (as per my prior question) that Ashkenazi Jews have superior intelligence and other hereditary advantages that cause them to occupy disproportionate chunks of the top rungs of society (thereby lowering mobility). Asift and myself would oppose changing this since the only solutions are violent. If one doesn't eliminate violence as a possible solution, what new avenues open up for us to solve this "Jewish problem"?
    • pron 11y ago
      > What evidence (if any) would cause you to believe it to be true? I said: any strong evidence that no human action could improve the poor's fortunes. I doubt such evidence could be found, though. First, equality has improved a lot due to human action, so the claim needs to be "but where we are now is as good as it gets", which sounds suspiciously convenient (especially as the people making that claim believe that almost everything else can be greatly improved, and their claim is usually based on no study at all of human society, so not understanding how change has been achieved so far makes the claim that we can't take it further even more suspect). Second, we are now able to stay underwater or in space, and to fly over oceans -- things we are genetically less inclined to do -- so I seriously doubt human ingenuity stops when it comes to equality. The question is how far should we work towards equality, but that is a question of values, again. > The cause matters because it affects potential solutions. Of course, but we're not arguing about solutions but about whether solutions need to be sought at all. > Asift and myself would oppose changing this, since the only solutions are violent and we both seem to prefer low violence to high mobility. If one doesn't oppose violence, what violent solutions to this hypothetical Jewish problem are acceptable? I, too, would oppose a violent solution, and not only for egotistical reasons, but your example is a non-sequitur. In order for this problem to be a problem at all, you'll need to show that it is in fact a major cause for lowered mobility. Second, I don't see what violence has to do with it. Your entire argument sounds like, "I need to get to the top floor of that building, but as someone opposed to violence I wouldn't kill everyone in the street and climb the nice incline of the pile of bodies to get to the top; how does one who isn't categorically opposed to violence suggest to get up there?" Why, she might just take the elevator. In other words, why would you even think that the only solution to inequality is violence?