3 ms·

The point isn't that most poor people work 2 jobs or whatever, the point is that there are plenty of poor people that work very hard but don't get ahead. Someo

by GVIrish 10y ago

The point isn't that most poor people work 2 jobs or whatever, the point is that there are plenty of poor people that work very hard but don't get ahead. Someone born into wealth who even puts in half the effort of a single mother working two jobs is still going to be wealthy. Furthermore, if you are born into a family where you have to work hourly jobs to support the family at the expense of your own educational advancement, chances are you are not going to advance as much economically as someone who doesn't have to make that compromise. As far as poor people and substance abuse, several states implemented drug testing regimes for people on welfare and what they found in all cases is that the drug use rate for welfare recipients was less than that of the general public, in most cases, about an order of magnitude less. http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/ http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/ The problem with the just world hypothesis is that it goes backwards from the successful outcome, then asserts that this outcome is proof that the world is fair. Person A is rich and successful because they worked hard and people who aren't rich and successful must've failed because they were lazy or irresponsible. But the truth is that circumstances are a large part of success and failure. Sure, when you equalize circumstances someone's personal effort, ability, and choices are what determines outcomes, but circumstances are rarely equal. When you're talking about groups of people born into massively unequal circumstances, the whole 'just world' thing falls apart. Someone born into a poor area, with bad schools, poor economic opportunities, and crime problems is simply not playing with the same deck of cards. Similarly, someone in the professional world who doesn't have the same connections as others or is not willing to bend the rules like others may be, is at a disadvantage. It doesn't mean that working hard and being skilled won't get you forward in life, most times it does. What it means is that success and achievement are not always fair and they are almost never independent of the situation someone is born and raised in.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Congrats - you've just disproven the just world hypothesis as a hard and fast, 100% true for every person rule. That straw man is now just a pile of hay! The problem with the just world hypothesis is that it goes backwards from the successful outcome, then asserts that this outcome is proof that the world is fair. Ok, so you have no problem with a statistical just world hypothesis like what Dalio and I suggested? Namely, good behavior causes good outcomes, but only probabilistically? Someone born into a poor area, with bad schools, poor economic opportunities, and crime problems is simply not playing with the same deck of cards. It's far from clear that this is true. Consider a statistically typical American born into such circumstances. Now consider a Gujurati, born into far worse circumstances who then shifts into American "bad circumstances" at age 12. Do you think the Gujurati will have the same bad outcomes as the American? If not, then it's not really a defensible claim that circumstances (at least as far as variation within the US goes) matter a lot. (We know from historical experiment that the answer is no, the Gujurati will perform quite well.)
- abawany 10y ago
  There are a lot of problems with your post. How do you know that these ubermensch "Gujarati" were uniformly born info "far worse circumstances"? Were their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then systematic segregation and on-going police brutality? I think you have lived in India for a while. Can the strata of society that is actually able to afford/obtain a visa to move to the US be compared one on one with a person from a bad neighborhood in this country? And why "Gujaratis" for goodness sake? Are Tamils SOL? How many of these folks do you know that have had good vs. bad outcomes? What historical experiment are you referring to here? I am spluttering but the rules of this site prevent me from venting what I actually feel after reading the above.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    From age 0-12, the Gujurati lived in circumstances that were below the bottom 5% of the US, same as basically all Indians: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... Were their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then systematic segregation and on-going police brutality? You seem to be suggesting that bad circumstances at time X cause bad behavior/outcomes which then is passed down through the generations. Lets assume this odd Lamarckian theory were true for a moment (I don't think it is) and explore it's consequences. Wouldn't this provide a specific causal mechanism for hereditary inferiority of various groups, thereby making it more likely that such theories (usually termed "white supremacist", though not by me) are true? Lets consider another group - folks persecuted by the Nazis, and hundreds of other incidents before then. Shouldn't they be underperforming? (Let me emphasize that I'm a Darwinian, not a Lamarckian. I'm just exploring your theory and illustrating why I think it's false, and why I think you should too. Let me also point out that you made this hypothetical American black, in my comment he was "statistically typical" which would make him white.) The historical experiment I refer to is the Gujurati diaspora. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora Your last line suggests you are having a strong emotional reaction to the idea I'm attempting to convey, namely that Gujuratis engage in certain behaviors that drive success while other groups don't. (Or perhaps it's the idea of black Lamarckian inferiority that is causing you negative emotions.) Can I ask why that is? (Tangentially, why Gujus vs Tamils? No compelling reason, Gujus just spring to mind because a good friend of mine - with whom I occasionally discuss issues like this - is Guju. But I believe that a Tamil immigrant would also behave differently and have better outcomes than an American.)

by GVIrish 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Congrats - you've just disproven the just world hypothesis as a hard and fast, 100% true for every person rule. That straw man is now just a pile of hay! The problem with the just world hypothesis is that it goes backwards from the successful outcome, then asserts that this outcome is proof that the world is fair. Ok, so you have no problem with a statistical just world hypothesis like what Dalio and I suggested? Namely, good behavior causes good outcomes, but only probabilistically? Someone born into a poor area, with bad schools, poor economic opportunities, and crime problems is simply not playing with the same deck of cards. It's far from clear that this is true. Consider a statistically typical American born into such circumstances. Now consider a Gujurati, born into far worse circumstances who then shifts into American "bad circumstances" at age 12. Do you think the Gujurati will have the same bad outcomes as the American? If not, then it's not really a defensible claim that circumstances (at least as far as variation within the US goes) matter a lot. (We know from historical experiment that the answer is no, the Gujurati will perform quite well.)

abawany 10y ago
There are a lot of problems with your post. How do you know that these ubermensch "Gujarati" were uniformly born info "far worse circumstances"? Were their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then systematic segregation and on-going police brutality? I think you have lived in India for a while. Can the strata of society that is actually able to afford/obtain a visa to move to the US be compared one on one with a person from a bad neighborhood in this country? And why "Gujaratis" for goodness sake? Are Tamils SOL? How many of these folks do you know that have had good vs. bad outcomes? What historical experiment are you referring to here? I am spluttering but the rules of this site prevent me from venting what I actually feel after reading the above.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  From age 0-12, the Gujurati lived in circumstances that were below the bottom 5% of the US, same as basically all Indians: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... Were their ancestors forced into slavery in the USA, then Jim Crow, then systematic segregation and on-going police brutality? You seem to be suggesting that bad circumstances at time X cause bad behavior/outcomes which then is passed down through the generations. Lets assume this odd Lamarckian theory were true for a moment (I don't think it is) and explore it's consequences. Wouldn't this provide a specific causal mechanism for hereditary inferiority of various groups, thereby making it more likely that such theories (usually termed "white supremacist", though not by me) are true? Lets consider another group - folks persecuted by the Nazis, and hundreds of other incidents before then. Shouldn't they be underperforming? (Let me emphasize that I'm a Darwinian, not a Lamarckian. I'm just exploring your theory and illustrating why I think it's false, and why I think you should too. Let me also point out that you made this hypothetical American black, in my comment he was "statistically typical" which would make him white.) The historical experiment I refer to is the Gujurati diaspora. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people#Diaspora Your last line suggests you are having a strong emotional reaction to the idea I'm attempting to convey, namely that Gujuratis engage in certain behaviors that drive success while other groups don't. (Or perhaps it's the idea of black Lamarckian inferiority that is causing you negative emotions.) Can I ask why that is? (Tangentially, why Gujus vs Tamils? No compelling reason, Gujus just spring to mind because a good friend of mine - with whom I occasionally discuss issues like this - is Guju. But I believe that a Tamil immigrant would also behave differently and have better outcomes than an American.)