4 ms·

I am so sorry that I couldn't get my point across effectively. What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty i

I am so sorry that I couldn't get my point across effectively. What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty is a derivative of our genetic code is extremely deterministic. Of course, you're right, but you forget that these are people capable of making a conscious choice. They are people who if given the right resources and understanding can choose otherwise. Perhaps we have a higher tendency of making such choices due to our genetic makeup, but that's what it exactly is a tendency. It is not an absolute, and my problem isn't the fact that this happens. It is the fact that this does happen and that despite the fact those people can choose whenever someone meets them they will label them under something like this. We talk about them as mammals and subjects. This is a good thing when you're trying to get down to the facts, but we need to remember this; they are people, human beings with feelings, desires, dreams, aspirations, hopes and pain. If we want to help them we should respect them not label them. [Edit: Made a few changes to make it more clear]

jseliger 16y ago
What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty is a derivative of our genetic code is extremely deterministic. I think the key word here is "tends:" as far as I know, no evolutionary biologists or psychologists would argue a 1:1 correspondence between these kinds of situations and behavior. But, from both a game theory and evolutionary point of view, the kind of behavior described in the article makes sense. This isn't at all about being "extremely deterministic;" it's about analyzing how people might respond to certain forces and situations. They will have free will and can still exert their preferences in a wide variety of ways. I think the author of the study and many others are trying to figure out how genes and environment interact -- which turns out to be a far more complex question than many simplifiers would have (and I'm not saying you're one of them). For more on the topic of genes/environments in a less contentious / politically loaded setting, see "The Orchid Child" in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-scie... .
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- todayiamme 16y ago
  Thank you for replying. The article was awesome, and I agree with what you say but try to understand this. I am not disputing the science that the author of the study it is dead on, and this is something really fascinating worth working on. What I am scared of is what happens when 3rd parties come into the mix. When you are in a highly dependent state the words free will often don't exist for you. You might have the freedom of free will but you do not have the liberty to exercise it. Or vice versa. In such a case labels are deadly. I am afraid that people will use something like this to label people, and those labels more often than not will destroy them. This is an extremely important thing. I am not saying that this research should not happen. In fact, it is critical for our future that such work is done, but it is far more important to make sure that it does not have unintended consequences. Whenever you need to understand a problem you need to choose different lens. Most people never analyze such things through the most important lens of them all; human emotion. How do you think those kids from the ghetto feel when someone labels them as weak and helpless? When someone automatically assumes that they are doomed? When people implicitly imply in their conversations that they have no future? I am just asking people to understand that they are humans too. Respect them. They may need our help, but do not judge them or box them into categories. It is true that it makes it easier for us to deal with things, but what about them?

jseliger 16y ago

What I was trying to say was that the idea that such behavior tends to trap people into poverty is a derivative of our genetic code is extremely deterministic. I think the key word here is "tends:" as far as I know, no evolutionary biologists or psychologists would argue a 1:1 correspondence between these kinds of situations and behavior. But, from both a game theory and evolutionary point of view, the kind of behavior described in the article makes sense. This isn't at all about being "extremely deterministic;" it's about analyzing how people might respond to certain forces and situations. They will have free will and can still exert their preferences in a wide variety of ways. I think the author of the study and many others are trying to figure out how genes and environment interact -- which turns out to be a far more complex question than many simplifiers would have (and I'm not saying you're one of them). For more on the topic of genes/environments in a less contentious / politically loaded setting, see "The Orchid Child" in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/7761 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-scie... .

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
todayiamme 16y ago
Thank you for replying. The article was awesome, and I agree with what you say but try to understand this. I am not disputing the science that the author of the study it is dead on, and this is something really fascinating worth working on. What I am scared of is what happens when 3rd parties come into the mix. When you are in a highly dependent state the words free will often don't exist for you. You might have the freedom of free will but you do not have the liberty to exercise it. Or vice versa. In such a case labels are deadly. I am afraid that people will use something like this to label people, and those labels more often than not will destroy them. This is an extremely important thing. I am not saying that this research should not happen. In fact, it is critical for our future that such work is done, but it is far more important to make sure that it does not have unintended consequences. Whenever you need to understand a problem you need to choose different lens. Most people never analyze such things through the most important lens of them all; human emotion. How do you think those kids from the ghetto feel when someone labels them as weak and helpless? When someone automatically assumes that they are doomed? When people implicitly imply in their conversations that they have no future? I am just asking people to understand that they are humans too. Respect them. They may need our help, but do not judge them or box them into categories. It is true that it makes it easier for us to deal with things, but what about them?