4 ms·

What troubles me the most is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as the research you describe, a very significant portion of Americans obstinate

What troubles me the most is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence such as the research you describe, a very significant portion of Americans obstinately refuse to consider any and all forms of social aid. I don't get it. I've tried to listen to their arguments and I just don't get it. Currently, the would-be recipients of such aid do not participate in the economy and cost the taxpayer billions in unpaid ER visits, policing, jails, property devaluation, etc. There are exactly two reasons I can think of why someone would oppose helping such people: 1. being extremely sheltered and having no understanding of what it's like to be poor. 2. an "us-vs-them" mentality (black people, immigrants, white trash, etc) All I can say is that such attitudes truly reveal something about the moral fiber of the individuals who hold them. The older I get, the less respect I have for such persons.

rocqua 10y ago
It takes an empirical view, acceptance that simple problems can have complicated solutions, and more faith in research than common sense for these arguments to be convincing. Lacking any of these, the common sense argument that giving poor people money makes them not want to work has more credence. All of that disregards the empathy that is required to understand poor people aren't poor by choice.
- projektir 10y ago
  I don't think it does. There's nothing particularly common sense about "giving poor people money makes them not want to work". "Poor people should get help" is much more common sense, in my opinion, and plenty of people hold that view, as well. The issue is one of popular belief. People currently believe that everyone is deeply in control of their lives, which necessarily demands that the situation of the poor must be their fault. Similar conclusions flow from high individualism, the idea that nobody can help you but yourself, and that difficult situations make good people. None of these things are common sense, they're counterintuitive, actually, so they require a pre-built framework of thinking to accept. It's a problem of philosophy, not empiricism. Most people don't care that much about research and, honestly, given the state of psych research right now, they probably shouldn't. But you don't need research to come to the simpler conclusion that a more dangerous environment reduces someone's chances.
  - ctchocula 10y ago
    It may not be common sense, but it's very much ingrained into the American culture. Some examples: 1. In The Three Little Pigs, the two pigs that built houses out of straw and hay were eaten by the wolf, but the pig that worked hard and built its house out of brick and mortar lived. 2. From 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." 3. In the spring of 1609, John Smith cited the aphorism to the colonists of Jamestown: > Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth... > ...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve... > You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers. 4. The sheer number of Ayn Rand followers in political office [1] when the aim of Ayn Rand's writing is justify why one ought not give a damn about anyone else (much less the poor). It makes sense for someone in a scarcity economy like John Smith to hold such a viewpoint, because otherwise everyone would starve to death. I lament the fact that even though the US can provide enough housing and food to feed everyone, we do not have the political will to do so. Even though Bertrand Russell was no economist, it seems we have arrived at his most insane dystopia [2] where "half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked" even though we could produce everything anyone ever wanted with a 20-hour work week and everyone working. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand-conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-ra... [2] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

rocqua 10y ago

It takes an empirical view, acceptance that simple problems can have complicated solutions, and more faith in research than common sense for these arguments to be convincing. Lacking any of these, the common sense argument that giving poor people money makes them not want to work has more credence. All of that disregards the empathy that is required to understand poor people aren't poor by choice.

projektir 10y ago
I don't think it does. There's nothing particularly common sense about "giving poor people money makes them not want to work". "Poor people should get help" is much more common sense, in my opinion, and plenty of people hold that view, as well. The issue is one of popular belief. People currently believe that everyone is deeply in control of their lives, which necessarily demands that the situation of the poor must be their fault. Similar conclusions flow from high individualism, the idea that nobody can help you but yourself, and that difficult situations make good people. None of these things are common sense, they're counterintuitive, actually, so they require a pre-built framework of thinking to accept. It's a problem of philosophy, not empiricism. Most people don't care that much about research and, honestly, given the state of psych research right now, they probably shouldn't. But you don't need research to come to the simpler conclusion that a more dangerous environment reduces someone's chances.
- ctchocula 10y ago
  It may not be common sense, but it's very much ingrained into the American culture. Some examples: 1. In The Three Little Pigs, the two pigs that built houses out of straw and hay were eaten by the wolf, but the pig that worked hard and built its house out of brick and mortar lived. 2. From 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." 3. In the spring of 1609, John Smith cited the aphorism to the colonists of Jamestown: > Countrymen, the long experience of our late miseries I hope is sufficient to persuade everyone to a present correction of himself, And think not that either my pains nor the adventurers' purses will ever maintain you in idleness and sloth... > ...the greater part must be more industrious, or starve... > You must obey this now for a law, that he that will not work shall not eat (except by sickness he be disabled). For the labors of thirty or forty honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintain a hundred and fifty idle loiterers. 4. The sheer number of Ayn Rand followers in political office [1] when the aim of Ayn Rand's writing is justify why one ought not give a damn about anyone else (much less the poor). It makes sense for someone in a scarcity economy like John Smith to hold such a viewpoint, because otherwise everyone would starve to death. I lament the fact that even though the US can provide enough housing and food to feed everyone, we do not have the political will to do so. Even though Bertrand Russell was no economist, it seems we have arrived at his most insane dystopia [2] where "half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked" even though we could produce everything anyone ever wanted with a 20-hour work week and everyone working. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-rand-conquered-trump-white-house-silicon-valley https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/apr/10/new-age-ayn-ra... [2] http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html