4 ms·

This sounds like sour grapes to me. If side effects like being exposed to true diversity, being empathetic, etc. are so good for you that they're better than e

by Jiro 5y ago

This sounds like sour grapes to me. If side effects like being exposed to true diversity, being empathetic, etc. are so good for you that they're better than escaping poverty, that means that poverty is something to be applauded. Nobody believes that. Poverty is bad. If you have a chance to escape poverty, and it doesn't have serious, straightforward, downsides like working 12 hours a day, or leaving your family, or killing people, you should take it. If you don't, you've made a poor life choice. >The ones whose parents did make the more socially-acceptable choice don't seem better off materially or emotionally than the ones who had to pull themselves up later. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to you? If it was good for your mother to stay in poverty so you are more empathetic, shouldn't it be good for you to stay in poverty and not pull yourself up at all, so these great benefits of poverty accrue to your children as well?

notacoward 5y ago
> that means that poverty is something to be applauded If you get to accuse me of sour grapes, I get to point out a strawman. Not only does nobody believe that, but nobody claimed or even implied it either. Bear in mind that there are many levels of poverty, and even at the same level many experiences. I think it's possible that it worked out for me and my brother, but that's neither certain nor generalizable. We were poor but not destitute, and we were poor for reasons that included our mother's commitment to being present for our childhoods. Not everyone has that. Also, being rich doesn't mean being happy or sane either. In my experience the relationship between later-life happiness and early-life circumstance is barely above statistical noise among those who are rich as adults. But that's not the same as recommending that people be poor, because so many (too many) people remain poor and are thus not part of the sample. I think overlooking that is either bad faith or proving the article's (and my) point. Sometimes poor people have priorities other than becoming un-poor as soon as humanly possible, and those priorities remain valid even if rich sophists don't understand or approve.
c22 5y ago
I think wealthy people should marry poor people more often so kids can grow up with the benefits of both types of influence.

by Jiro 5y ago

notacoward 5y ago

> that means that poverty is something to be applauded If you get to accuse me of sour grapes, I get to point out a strawman. Not only does nobody believe that, but nobody claimed or even implied it either. Bear in mind that there are many levels of poverty, and even at the same level many experiences. I think it's possible that it worked out for me and my brother, but that's neither certain nor generalizable. We were poor but not destitute, and we were poor for reasons that included our mother's commitment to being present for our childhoods. Not everyone has that. Also, being rich doesn't mean being happy or sane either. In my experience the relationship between later-life happiness and early-life circumstance is barely above statistical noise among those who are rich as adults. But that's not the same as recommending that people be poor, because so many (too many) people remain poor and are thus not part of the sample. I think overlooking that is either bad faith or proving the article's (and my) point. Sometimes poor people have priorities other than becoming un-poor as soon as humanly possible, and those priorities remain valid even if rich sophists don't understand or approve.

c22 5y ago

I think wealthy people should marry poor people more often so kids can grow up with the benefits of both types of influence.