5 ms·

I would see it as less a false dichotomy than just recognizing that these issues are not always orthogonal.

by pacaro 9y ago

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I don't really understand that use of the word orthogonal. But for clarity's sake: I have read about issues like poverty for decades. In any given year, about 10 to 15 percent of Americans are below the federal poverty level. But only about 2 percent of Americans are chronically poor. This is typically defined as below the federal poverty level for at least 5 years out of 10. In fact, I have even seen stats that suggest that being in the bottom 20 percent in one year is actually a reasonable predictor for being in the top 20 percent the following year. Some people below the federal poverty level in a given year are temporarily unemployed and job hunting. In some cases, they are actually starting a new business. So, most folks don't stay below the poverty level. The people who are chronically poor are the ones that have significant personal challenges. These personal challenges both make them miserable and are also a root cause of their poverty. If they can't resolve their personal issues in some manner, they remain poor. I have not only studied such things, I have lived it. Misery is not just having X problem, but knowing that you may never be able to resolve it and that the world does a really sucky job of providing some means for people like you to have some kind of baseline level of comfort. It is a kind of personal hell.
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  > I don't really understand that use of the word orthogonal. You can imagine a two-dimensional graph with the quantity "intractable personal issues" on one axis and "chronically poor" on the other. But when the level of chronic poorness varies, sometimes the level of intractable personal issues varies as well, leading to the motion of the quantity along both axes at the same time. That is moving the measurement in one dimension sometimes results in its motion in the other dimension, so there is no way to move completely orthogonally(perpendicularly) to one axis. This is what is meant by "not completely orthogonal."
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    Thanks. One of the great mysteries of HN may have just been solved for me.

I would see it as less a false dichotomy than just recognizing that these issues are not always orthogonal.

by pacaro 9y ago

I would see it as less a false dichotomy than just recognizing that these issues are not always orthogonal.

I don't really understand that use of the word orthogonal. But for clarity's sake: I have read about issues like poverty for decades. In any given year, about 10 to 15 percent of Americans are below the federal poverty level. But only about 2 percent of Americans are chronically poor. This is typically defined as below the federal poverty level for at least 5 years out of 10. In fact, I have even seen stats that suggest that being in the bottom 20 percent in one year is actually a reasonable predictor for being in the top 20 percent the following year. Some people below the federal poverty level in a given year are temporarily unemployed and job hunting. In some cases, they are actually starting a new business. So, most folks don't stay below the poverty level. The people who are chronically poor are the ones that have significant personal challenges. These personal challenges both make them miserable and are also a root cause of their poverty. If they can't resolve their personal issues in some manner, they remain poor. I have not only studied such things, I have lived it. Misery is not just having X problem, but knowing that you may never be able to resolve it and that the world does a really sucky job of providing some means for people like you to have some kind of baseline level of comfort. It is a kind of personal hell.

jschwartzi 9y ago
> I don't really understand that use of the word orthogonal. You can imagine a two-dimensional graph with the quantity "intractable personal issues" on one axis and "chronically poor" on the other. But when the level of chronic poorness varies, sometimes the level of intractable personal issues varies as well, leading to the motion of the quantity along both axes at the same time. That is moving the measurement in one dimension sometimes results in its motion in the other dimension, so there is no way to move completely orthogonally(perpendicularly) to one axis. This is what is meant by "not completely orthogonal."
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Thanks. One of the great mysteries of HN may have just been solved for me.