4 ms·

It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's not really inflammatory or even untrue. I think it's fair to say that this topic is complex enough that both

It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's not really inflammatory or even untrue. I think it's fair to say that this topic is complex enough that both this comment and the parent comment are true (which is that poverty is a function of both factors that can be controlled and factors that cannot be controlled).

tptacek 9y ago
"A huge proportion of poverty stems from bad work ethic" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  Yeah. Specifically, if someone is confident enough to attach a qualifier to a numeric descriptor (i.e. "proportion"), they should demonstrate that they also have the quantities to support that qualifier.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    It doesn't help that the unsupported extraordinary assertion here casts aspersions on people in poverty. It's one of those things you really want to be sure you're right about before saying. Hence: downvotes.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Yeah, that too. Bad work ethic, or work ethic that isn't compatible with the system they're submerged in? If you want to frame it in terms of choices, what is it about the modern work world that is so intolerable that a person would willingly choose poverty, homelessness, etc., over work? If so many people are "bad," how can you say the system is good and it's the people...
- kamaal 9y ago
  And yet if it actually was due to a bad work ethic, not acknowledging it means the bad work ethic continues. Sometimes these are good points to tick away when you are trying to identify what your problems are.
dwaltrip 9y ago
I just had a thought that much of the difficulty lies in the murky zone between the following views: 1) "This person is struggling, and part of the problem is their work ethic and poor executive functioning." and 2) "This is a moral failing and thus we can't help them too much, as they will take advantage of it." I think some people automatically associate the second idea with people who express the first, when in reality they don't have to be tightly coupled. I personally think that (1) is a legitimate dynamic in some cases (I have no idea the exact extent). On the other hand, (2), while touching on a worthwhile consideration (any help given should be effective, etc), frames things in an inflammatory and unproductive way, and on the net implies an inaccurate and harmful overly pessimistic sentiment. Another huge reason for the trickiness is that the concept of "work ethic" is fairly nebulous and complex. For example, sometimes people can have a huge change in work ethic with a small change in perspective (of course, perspective changes are difficult in and of themselves) or environment.
- Banthum 9y ago
  Eh, more like: 3) "This person is struggling, we can't help them in ways that are too paternalistic or agency-denying, because that will ultimately just end up harming them". E.g. You wouldn't tell your child that his economic outcomes are completely unconnected to his own choices or work ethic. If a kid has trouble at a task, we don't just tell them that the task is stacked against them and that they can do nothing to alleviate their failure. Telling a kid that over and over would border on child abuse. Yet some people seem to think that telling the poor this overall - that they have no control, that their choices mean nothing, that the locus of control is 100% external to them - is somehow good. It's bizarre.
  - Mz 9y ago
    Actually, it would be more like telling your child with ADHD "You just need to study harder at school and the beatings will continue until morale improves. No, we won't give you ADHD meds nor hire you a tutor. Buck up and grow a spine, you whiner." See also my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14590486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14590486 Your remarks are incredibly ignorant and are being downvoted because it is the sort of attitude that allows privileged peoples to wash their hands of dealing with very real systemic problems that are an excess burden for the people whose lives come so unraveled that they wind up homeless.
gnaritas 9y ago
> It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's not really inflammatory or even untrue. Actually it's both inflammatory and untrue; spoken by someone who's obviously never been poor or known many poor people. Being poor is not a choice nor due to people simply being lazy, regardless of any anecdotes you might come up with. Anecdotes have no place in such conversations about systemic issues.
- Banthum 9y ago
  Never? Not ever? Not even 1% of the poor? Not even one person? The absolutism of your statements makes it clear that you are convinced morally of your arguments, not factually. You believe intensively in what you're saying because you think it's good, not because you've got an airtight case that it's universally factually correct. Don't let your moral convictions bleed into your understanding of the world; it makes you an ideological zombie who can't handle statistical nuances or proportionality arguments.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    The claim was "a huge proportion of poverty stems from bad work ethic". Not 1%. Not one person. Please stop moving the goalposts.
    - chillacy 9y ago
      It's not the first disagreement on this site I've seen boil down to people's varying levels of belief of how much influence people have over their environment and vice versa. (I think reality is somewhere in between). I haven't found the right word for it, but it seems to be loosely related to a personality attribute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control Which if true, would mean nobody's changing their mind. It would be like an argument between a staunch introvert and extravert arguing over whether or not socializing is exhilarating or draining.
      - BoiledCabbage 9y ago
tempestn 9y ago
Regardless of whether I agree with the parent comment, I'm inclined to agree that it shouldn't be downvoted. Even if the opinion itself is inflammatory to some, it seems to be expressed in as conscientious a way as possible, and the reasoning (whether you agree with it or not) is explained. You could certainly argue that there are flaws in the logic, lack of evidence etc., but IMO it does at least add to the discussion. If unpopular opinions are regularly downvoted, people will stop expressing them, even in the cases where they might be right, or at least useful to the discussion. I really like the metric that downvotes should be for comments that are uncivil and/or don't add anything of value to the discussion.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Correct, but it's an unhelpful distraction from the more difficult structural problem. It's like having some hippie come along with a lecture about aligning your chakras and so on - there's a worthwhile spiritual philosophy underneath all the buzzwords, and a sincere intention to be helpful and motivating, but if you're not already in that meditative frame of mind then it's both unhelpful and annoying. Talking about work ethic is valuable after other existential and economic anxieties have been alleviated and a person is in a position to make choices - not just select from expiring alternatives - about what sort of life style and goals they wish to pursue. Offered without regard to the situations that marginalized people find themselves in, it's mere pablum.
michaelmrose 9y ago
Its inflammatory and untrue. Its an emotional appeal to the just world fallacy that frankly detracts from actually useful conversation.
Drdrdrq 9y ago
Off topic: this is UX problem with HN. Up-arrow means "I agree", while down-arrow means "this post is inappropriate". Most people simply want a button "I respectfully disagree" which is absent. As a consequence this also means that difference in opinion is discouraged because downvotes affect karma. </off-topic>

tptacek 9y ago

"A huge proportion of poverty stems from bad work ethic" is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

enraged_camel 9y ago
Yeah. Specifically, if someone is confident enough to attach a qualifier to a numeric descriptor (i.e. "proportion"), they should demonstrate that they also have the quantities to support that qualifier.
- tptacek 9y ago
  It doesn't help that the unsupported extraordinary assertion here casts aspersions on people in poverty. It's one of those things you really want to be sure you're right about before saying. Hence: downvotes.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Yeah, that too. Bad work ethic, or work ethic that isn't compatible with the system they're submerged in? If you want to frame it in terms of choices, what is it about the modern work world that is so intolerable that a person would willingly choose poverty, homelessness, etc., over work? If so many people are "bad," how can you say the system is good and it's the people...
kamaal 9y ago
And yet if it actually was due to a bad work ethic, not acknowledging it means the bad work ethic continues. Sometimes these are good points to tick away when you are trying to identify what your problems are.

dwaltrip 9y ago

I just had a thought that much of the difficulty lies in the murky zone between the following views: 1) "This person is struggling, and part of the problem is their work ethic and poor executive functioning." and 2) "This is a moral failing and thus we can't help them too much, as they will take advantage of it." I think some people automatically associate the second idea with people who express the first, when in reality they don't have to be tightly coupled. I personally think that (1) is a legitimate dynamic in some cases (I have no idea the exact extent). On the other hand, (2), while touching on a worthwhile consideration (any help given should be effective, etc), frames things in an inflammatory and unproductive way, and on the net implies an inaccurate and harmful overly pessimistic sentiment. Another huge reason for the trickiness is that the concept of "work ethic" is fairly nebulous and complex. For example, sometimes people can have a huge change in work ethic with a small change in perspective (of course, perspective changes are difficult in and of themselves) or environment.

Banthum 9y ago
Eh, more like: 3) "This person is struggling, we can't help them in ways that are too paternalistic or agency-denying, because that will ultimately just end up harming them". E.g. You wouldn't tell your child that his economic outcomes are completely unconnected to his own choices or work ethic. If a kid has trouble at a task, we don't just tell them that the task is stacked against them and that they can do nothing to alleviate their failure. Telling a kid that over and over would border on child abuse. Yet some people seem to think that telling the poor this overall - that they have no control, that their choices mean nothing, that the locus of control is 100% external to them - is somehow good. It's bizarre.
- Mz 9y ago
  Actually, it would be more like telling your child with ADHD "You just need to study harder at school and the beatings will continue until morale improves. No, we won't give you ADHD meds nor hire you a tutor. Buck up and grow a spine, you whiner." See also my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14590486 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14590486 Your remarks are incredibly ignorant and are being downvoted because it is the sort of attitude that allows privileged peoples to wash their hands of dealing with very real systemic problems that are an excess burden for the people whose lives come so unraveled that they wind up homeless.

gnaritas 9y ago

> It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's not really inflammatory or even untrue. Actually it's both inflammatory and untrue; spoken by someone who's obviously never been poor or known many poor people. Being poor is not a choice nor due to people simply being lazy, regardless of any anecdotes you might come up with. Anecdotes have no place in such conversations about systemic issues.

Banthum 9y ago
Never? Not ever? Not even 1% of the poor? Not even one person? The absolutism of your statements makes it clear that you are convinced morally of your arguments, not factually. You believe intensively in what you're saying because you think it's good, not because you've got an airtight case that it's universally factually correct. Don't let your moral convictions bleed into your understanding of the world; it makes you an ideological zombie who can't handle statistical nuances or proportionality arguments.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  The claim was "a huge proportion of poverty stems from bad work ethic". Not 1%. Not one person. Please stop moving the goalposts.
  - chillacy 9y ago
    It's not the first disagreement on this site I've seen boil down to people's varying levels of belief of how much influence people have over their environment and vice versa. (I think reality is somewhere in between). I haven't found the right word for it, but it seems to be loosely related to a personality attribute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control Which if true, would mean nobody's changing their mind. It would be like an argument between a staunch introvert and extravert arguing over whether or not socializing is exhilarating or draining.
    - BoiledCabbage 9y ago

tempestn 9y ago

Regardless of whether I agree with the parent comment, I'm inclined to agree that it shouldn't be downvoted. Even if the opinion itself is inflammatory to some, it seems to be expressed in as conscientious a way as possible, and the reasoning (whether you agree with it or not) is explained. You could certainly argue that there are flaws in the logic, lack of evidence etc., but IMO it does at least add to the discussion. If unpopular opinions are regularly downvoted, people will stop expressing them, even in the cases where they might be right, or at least useful to the discussion. I really like the metric that downvotes should be for comments that are uncivil and/or don't add anything of value to the discussion.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Correct, but it's an unhelpful distraction from the more difficult structural problem. It's like having some hippie come along with a lecture about aligning your chakras and so on - there's a worthwhile spiritual philosophy underneath all the buzzwords, and a sincere intention to be helpful and motivating, but if you're not already in that meditative frame of mind then it's both unhelpful and annoying. Talking about work ethic is valuable after other existential and economic anxieties have been alleviated and a person is in a position to make choices - not just select from expiring alternatives - about what sort of life style and goals they wish to pursue. Offered without regard to the situations that marginalized people find themselves in, it's mere pablum.

michaelmrose 9y ago

Its inflammatory and untrue. Its an emotional appeal to the just world fallacy that frankly detracts from actually useful conversation.

Drdrdrq 9y ago

Off topic: this is UX problem with HN. Up-arrow means "I agree", while down-arrow means "this post is inappropriate". Most people simply want a button "I respectfully disagree" which is absent. As a consequence this also means that difference in opinion is discouraged because downvotes affect karma. </off-topic>