5 ms·

How about a reality hat: the world does not offer everyone equal chances. You live in a country surrounded by fences and border patrol exactly to keep those tha

How about a reality hat: the world does not offer everyone equal chances. You live in a country surrounded by fences and border patrol exactly to keep those that were less lucky from trying to get some of that luck. Even when born in the country, there are better and worse schools, better and worse social infrastructure, a billion different glass ceilings according to color, gender, age, accent or faith. Your comment perpetuates the eternal lie that everyone can rise to the top, but we all know that some have a 50% chance and others a 0.0005% chance to 'make it'. It's absurd to blame the kid with a bad school and no breakfast for not living up to the highest moral standards and take all the right decisions when they have probably barely to no good advice, guidance or role models. Its easy to judge, but try to empathise. That's not a policy hat, it's acknowledging reality.

nostrademons 6y ago
I saw nothing of the sort in chmod600's comment. They even led with "When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you should consider what people actually do." Policymakers in Washington and poor immigrants on the streets need different advice, because they control different things. If you are President or Congressperson in the U.S.A, then by all means: let's have a more humane immigration system, and universal health care, and a social safety net. But if you're a poor immigrant in this country, none of that policy is up to you. Non-citizens don't get to vote; Congresspeople do not listen to them. They risk being deported for the slightest infraction. They often require their employer to sponsor their continued stay in the U.S. They lack financial resources, and oftentimes job skills. They lack cultural capital and a support network. But they can control several things. They can control where they choose to settle, and move to areas with more opportunity. They can control what they choose to spend money on, and not let anything out the door that isn't absolutely essential for survival. They can control what they do with their time, and allocate that to building new skills and pursuing new opportunities. If they don't do all of those things, they will fall behind, through the cracks, because that's how life is for poor non-citizens in America. It's usually worse for poor non-citizens in the countries they came from, too. Being able to think systemically, act collectively, and be free from any sort of reprisal or consequence is itself a form of privilege. I thought that chmod600's comment acknowledged reality more than yours did, because not everybody has that privilege. And if you're one of the many people who don't, your best option is to think about your own enlightened self-interest, act according to the options available to you, consider consequences carefully, and not feel too guilty about doing the best that you can.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Yes, thank you. An important element of my argument is to focus on what's in your control. It's not exclusively about immigrants. In fact, immigrants are less likely to be caught up in notions of fairness because they probably thought to themselves before they came something like "this is going to suck and be unfair, but it will be worth it for my children and grandchildren". So they just make the best of it and compare with the country they came from, not some ideal utopia. The ability to vote is some tiny amount of control, but democracy is a blunt instrument to actually affect your life in a positive way. Policies and their implementation rarely live up to expectations even when enacted, so people waiting for them just get more discouraged. And a lot of policies that might sound good have bad unintended consequences, which is why there are endless arguments. I don't mean to give up on policy, just to recognize that it's not going to be the salvation you're waiting for. Sensibly spend some effort to understand issues and vote for good representatives, but don't hold your breath. Focus on ordinary good advice and encouragement that work regardless of the policies. Most of the goodness in the world is not some well-crafted policy, but ordinary people doing ordinary good things. Be positive and encouraging and give credit when people do those good things, don't be dismissive because you think people will misinterpret the story and craft bad policy out of it. The way we build on success as a society is when people share their success stories. If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories.
  - sorisos 6y ago
    > If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories. I would argue that a culture which attributes success in life to personal effort or choices is sick. This makes people blame themselves for not trying hard enough etc, when in reality there are more decisive factors such as who your parents are (or luck).
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      For me, This is a very strange take. Don't we want a culture where success in life is associated with personal choice and an economic environment which allows it to be true? For now, it is at least a half truth where some individuals are successful because of their hard work and others due to luck. In what world would we want a culture where success is viewed as entirely random? how would this be better?
s1artibartfast 6y ago
Think of it another way: What advice would you offer a young poor student looking to get out of poverty A) The cards are stacked against you, but your best chance is to work hard, get good grades, keep a clean criminal record, go to college, and get a good job. B) You are the victim of a broken system and this system needs to be fixed. Both are true, but only one of these messages is actionable and relevant for the student. Yes, the system us unfair, but people can and do rise out of poverty every day. In fact, most children born into poverty make it out of poverty (66% according to this PEW paper [1]) https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/EMPReportsUpward20Intergen20Mobility2008530pdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...
- anemoiac 6y ago
  I don't understand why you can't tell the hypothetical young, poor student both 'A' and 'B.' In fact, not doing so seems a bit manipulative (regardless of your intentions). A potential consequence of perpetually leaving 'B' out of the discussion is that, while some of these young, poor students will escape poverty and others will not, neither group may realize that the status quo reflects decisions made by human beings, not some invisible law of nature. Telling poor and disenfranchised people that hard work is the solution to all of their problems sounds just like a recipe for inducing learned helplessness [1] to me. Sure, some hard-working poor people will escape poverty, but plenty won't. The difference between the two groups often lies in factors outside of their control. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    My fundamental concerns are threefold: First, is learned helpless. As the article you linked points out, learned helplessness is not the result of working hard and encountering challenges. It is the brain's default assumption in the absence of of encouragement. People's brains are already predisposed to inaction and helplessness by millions of years of evolutionary biology. Humans are already predisposed to fallacies and heuristics that overestimate the challenges and obstacles, and reinforcing them is actively damaging. Poor people already know how hard their life is, they don't need other people to reinforce this. Second, discussion systemic problems is almost never accompanied by a quantification of the relative impact of hard work vs social policy. Is it 90% hard work and 10% luck, or the the inverse. Last is relevance. A poor child cant wait 30 years for political solutions to improve social mobility by a few percentage points. They can't go back and be born to a richer household. Pursuing an education and clean record has vastly greater impact on outcomes today, and will continue to be more impactful in the future.
novembermike 6y ago
Sure, but there's another part of it where applying statistical averages to individuals promotes helplessness. Expecting people to suck it up and achieve despite adversity is not realistic at a population level and you should not promote that as a solution there, but individuals can and do achieve despite adversity. Telling people that they are real humans that can make decisions and do things is healthy and you don't want to take that away. It's a line you need to walk but only going with the population level approach has a lot of downsides.

nostrademons 6y ago

I saw nothing of the sort in chmod600's comment. They even led with "When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you should consider what people actually do." Policymakers in Washington and poor immigrants on the streets need different advice, because they control different things. If you are President or Congressperson in the U.S.A, then by all means: let's have a more humane immigration system, and universal health care, and a social safety net. But if you're a poor immigrant in this country, none of that policy is up to you. Non-citizens don't get to vote; Congresspeople do not listen to them. They risk being deported for the slightest infraction. They often require their employer to sponsor their continued stay in the U.S. They lack financial resources, and oftentimes job skills. They lack cultural capital and a support network. But they can control several things. They can control where they choose to settle, and move to areas with more opportunity. They can control what they choose to spend money on, and not let anything out the door that isn't absolutely essential for survival. They can control what they do with their time, and allocate that to building new skills and pursuing new opportunities. If they don't do all of those things, they will fall behind, through the cracks, because that's how life is for poor non-citizens in America. It's usually worse for poor non-citizens in the countries they came from, too. Being able to think systemically, act collectively, and be free from any sort of reprisal or consequence is itself a form of privilege. I thought that chmod600's comment acknowledged reality more than yours did, because not everybody has that privilege. And if you're one of the many people who don't, your best option is to think about your own enlightened self-interest, act according to the options available to you, consider consequences carefully, and not feel too guilty about doing the best that you can.

chmod600 6y ago
Yes, thank you. An important element of my argument is to focus on what's in your control. It's not exclusively about immigrants. In fact, immigrants are less likely to be caught up in notions of fairness because they probably thought to themselves before they came something like "this is going to suck and be unfair, but it will be worth it for my children and grandchildren". So they just make the best of it and compare with the country they came from, not some ideal utopia. The ability to vote is some tiny amount of control, but democracy is a blunt instrument to actually affect your life in a positive way. Policies and their implementation rarely live up to expectations even when enacted, so people waiting for them just get more discouraged. And a lot of policies that might sound good have bad unintended consequences, which is why there are endless arguments. I don't mean to give up on policy, just to recognize that it's not going to be the salvation you're waiting for. Sensibly spend some effort to understand issues and vote for good representatives, but don't hold your breath. Focus on ordinary good advice and encouragement that work regardless of the policies. Most of the goodness in the world is not some well-crafted policy, but ordinary people doing ordinary good things. Be positive and encouraging and give credit when people do those good things, don't be dismissive because you think people will misinterpret the story and craft bad policy out of it. The way we build on success as a society is when people share their success stories. If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories.
- sorisos 6y ago
  > If every time someone shares their success, the response is instantly about how privileged or lucky they are, then our culture is sick. We should listen to and support those stories. I would argue that a culture which attributes success in life to personal effort or choices is sick. This makes people blame themselves for not trying hard enough etc, when in reality there are more decisive factors such as who your parents are (or luck).
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    For me, This is a very strange take. Don't we want a culture where success in life is associated with personal choice and an economic environment which allows it to be true? For now, it is at least a half truth where some individuals are successful because of their hard work and others due to luck. In what world would we want a culture where success is viewed as entirely random? how would this be better?

s1artibartfast 6y ago

Think of it another way: What advice would you offer a young poor student looking to get out of poverty A) The cards are stacked against you, but your best chance is to work hard, get good grades, keep a clean criminal record, go to college, and get a good job. B) You are the victim of a broken system and this system needs to be fixed. Both are true, but only one of these messages is actionable and relevant for the student. Yes, the system us unfair, but people can and do rise out of poverty every day. In fact, most children born into poverty make it out of poverty (66% according to this PEW paper [1]) https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/EMPReportsUpward20Intergen20Mobility2008530pdf.pdf https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

anemoiac 6y ago
I don't understand why you can't tell the hypothetical young, poor student both 'A' and 'B.' In fact, not doing so seems a bit manipulative (regardless of your intentions). A potential consequence of perpetually leaving 'B' out of the discussion is that, while some of these young, poor students will escape poverty and others will not, neither group may realize that the status quo reflects decisions made by human beings, not some invisible law of nature. Telling poor and disenfranchised people that hard work is the solution to all of their problems sounds just like a recipe for inducing learned helplessness [1] to me. Sure, some hard-working poor people will escape poverty, but plenty won't. The difference between the two groups often lies in factors outside of their control. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  My fundamental concerns are threefold: First, is learned helpless. As the article you linked points out, learned helplessness is not the result of working hard and encountering challenges. It is the brain's default assumption in the absence of of encouragement. People's brains are already predisposed to inaction and helplessness by millions of years of evolutionary biology. Humans are already predisposed to fallacies and heuristics that overestimate the challenges and obstacles, and reinforcing them is actively damaging. Poor people already know how hard their life is, they don't need other people to reinforce this. Second, discussion systemic problems is almost never accompanied by a quantification of the relative impact of hard work vs social policy. Is it 90% hard work and 10% luck, or the the inverse. Last is relevance. A poor child cant wait 30 years for political solutions to improve social mobility by a few percentage points. They can't go back and be born to a richer household. Pursuing an education and clean record has vastly greater impact on outcomes today, and will continue to be more impactful in the future.

novembermike 6y ago

Sure, but there's another part of it where applying statistical averages to individuals promotes helplessness. Expecting people to suck it up and achieve despite adversity is not realistic at a population level and you should not promote that as a solution there, but individuals can and do achieve despite adversity. Telling people that they are real humans that can make decisions and do things is healthy and you don't want to take that away. It's a line you need to walk but only going with the population level approach has a lot of downsides.