6 ms·

> If we can identify those success factors I don't have complete answers, but my capstone project in college involved interviewing a handful of people who volu

> If we can identify those success factors I don't have complete answers, but my capstone project in college involved interviewing a handful of people who volunteered in their communities to see if we could come up with some hypotheses about hooks to get more people to engage with their local communities. My takeaway from the interviews was that people's reasons for volunteering were essentially intrinsic, not extrinsic. One guy had benefited from books donated to his prison so felt he should pay it forward after he was out. A mom volunteered in activities her kids were engaging in. Someone else volunteered as a way of staying socially active. There _were_ clear motivations, but not something you'd likely have much luck leveraging en masse without knowing someone's history and what they personally cared about. However, you can maybe approach the problem preemptively by creating an environment that creates the sorts of people who will give back to their community (maybe being a good foster parent to a kid who decides it's important to be a good faster parent to someone else). It's not fool proof - even good parents can see their kids go bad - but it's a start.

Consultant32452 5y ago
I don't believe communities will bond together as long as the state provides a fake feeling of social security (lower case). The state came in and declared itself the entity you turn to when times are tough: you lost your job, became disabled/sick, need daycare/schooling for your kids, etc. Now, instead of having relationships with your community, you have a relationship with the state. With the modern design of communities with powerful governments, you will only find small pockets where people have chosen to come together for some higher purpose like religious communities. And yes of course small/random exceptions to these rules will exist, but this is how it works at scale.
- EricE 5y ago
  Exactly. Centralizing resources at the state level - whether it's financial, social or whatever - removes the biggest success factor: what's in it for me? A lot of people tend to look at that phrase cynically. I tend to be more pragmatic - no one is going to care about my needs more than I am. And if I go the 100% selfish path then no one else is going to want to interact with me, so it's in my self interest to NOT be a jerk - self governing. Start to break down those personal interdependencies (and remove some of those self governing mechanisms at the same time too) by inserting shortcuts around them - like substituting resources from government - and you start to see things break down. Just look at the effects of welfare on minority communities. Disincentives for young women from getting married and you have generations of kids, especially young males, without the influence of a father - and the results of that are pretty apparent. As others point out, even crappy parents are often way better than the alternatives. The middle class of the black community in particular was rapidly expanding post WWII - until the "great society" welfare programs kicked in, with pretty devastating results - to them, anyway. It was a boon for politicians who now had power over an ever growing and dependent base.
  - erosenbe0 5y ago
    Your romanticization of post WWII conditions is highly inaccurate. Black middle class expanded because of migration insofar as segregation and maltreatment allowed. Take Silicon Valley. Segregation was legal and often preferred there until 1964 so the growing Black middle class was systematically denied entry in the 1950s to the growing job potential there. How many Blacks worked at HP in 1960s, or Intel in 1970s? How many Blacks worked at a mechanic shop or a cleaning service or a coffee place or any auxiliary business in Silicon Valley in the post WWII era, so their children could gain a foothold in the schools and the massive wealth creation engine? How many Black dental hygienists were there in Santa Clara county? Secretaries? Schoolteachers? Firefighters? How many Black friends did Steve Jobs have in grade school in the 1960s?
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      There was less income inequality between blacks and whites during Jim Crowe than today. You can expand that to almost every measure of well-being like broken families, suicide rates, criminality, etc. This is obviously not a post advocating for Jim Crowe. But it is a post that is asking for an explanation as to why blacks are doing so much worse compared to whites today than they were during Jim Crowe. Do you believe we've gotten more racist?
      - erosenbe0 5y ago
        First of all, your claims about well being are nonsense. Use a real statistic like literacy or average number of lost teeth. The white-Black literacy disparity or dental health disparity is clearly lower than 1950. Also, none of your claimed income statistics are sufficiently granular to start a discussion since the average Black American worker may be something like 10 years younger than the average white American worker and also a weighted average by county of residence shows that Blacks live in places with lower wages compared to whites. Edit: you're not wrong that social problems have changed and some could be due to government interventions but you paint a broad brush that is not accurate and sounds like a talking point blurb
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Does this track actually track with places where the government has largely ignored, such as lgbtqia and immigrant communities? Would anyone reasonably describe undocumented immigrants as having a community that is more robust, bonding together, and having less folks slip through the cracks than a well-funded government with a strong safety net could provide? How is the lgbtqia community going to fund trans people's surgeries and medications, and are they doing it better than what a well-funded healthcare system with minimal bigotry towards trans medical needs would do? In turn, does this mean we can extrapolate and figure out whether or not more social safety net containing countries, like say the nordic countries, do they have a lesser sense of community than somalia?
  - specialist 5y ago
    > ...does this mean we can extrapolate and figure out whether or not more social safety net containing countries... I've long assumed that financial insecurity leads to all sorts of bad outcomes. Alcoholism, abuse, suicide, etc. The damage spanning generations and very hard to heal. So I support any and all efforts to improve that security. Universal healthcare, universal childcare, affordable housing, living wages, parental leave, small business loans. Name it, I probably support it. In other words, Nordic style social democracy, or whatever it's called. But in truth, I don't actually know that kids in Denmark and Norway do better than in my home state. Overall. I feel like this is something I should know. I have friends who work on progressive policy issues. So I know tidbits. For instance, that generously investing in preschool greatly improves the lifetime outcomes of those kids. But I don't even know where to look for population level comparisons. And my quick foraging online was fruitless.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- specialist 5y ago
  What policies do you advocate for reducing child abuse?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    I don't have a good solution to child abuse and have never seen a good solution in practice anywhere in the world. Are you aware of any organizations or collections of individuals that are responsible for more child abuse and death than the governments of the world?
    - specialist 5y ago
      The whole world? Perhaps start by comparing child abuse per capita, see if there's any correlations?
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        Are you aware of any country that has implemented a set of policies that obviously and dramatically reduced child abuse? I see cultural variances, wealth correlations, etc. But never have I seen a program or simple set of programs that looks anything like a silver bullet on child abuse. You could probably convince me of some programs that are beneficial (even if not a silver bullet), you are unlikely to be able to convince me that the benefits outweigh the costs of death and suffering to children from things like war, sanctions, food tariffs, etc. The state is always the biggest abuser.
        specialist 5y ago
        > The state is always the biggest abuser. Providing schools and health care is morally equivalent to waging war?
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        You can have schools and healthcare without the state. The cost of having the state provide those services is all the things that come along with the state including war, forced starvation through sanctions, etc.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  I really feel like you would benefit from learning more about what life was like before the advent of social safety nets. What charity there was was woefully insufficient for the need, and one often only qualified if they were of a particular religious group. Mostly, people were at the mercy of their family. I know that sounds like a 'good thing' but go read biographies of the time. People were forced to endure horrific abuse by their close or extended families simply because they had no where else to go. The state providing it's citizens a basic foundational safety net is a good thing. There are tons of things that have broken down social cohesion, but safety nets are not one of them. Have a look at the scandi countries.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    We're not talking about breaking down social cohesion in the sense of total chaos in the streets. We're talking about neighbors knowing each other and taking care of each other. Loneliness and depression are at all time highs despite the largest social safety nets in history. Cherry picking a few of the wealthiest countries in the world that are racially and culturally homogeneous is not very helpful. One of those scandi countries just announced suicide pods where you can go kill yourself because so many people want to. It's fine to say the social programs are worth the cost, but don't deny the cost.
    - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
      This comment is so all over the place I don't really know where to begin. First, I would argue it's easier to know and care for one another when one's basic needs are met. You're simply moving up the maslow hierarchy. Second: I googled this. Some inventor in Switzerland hires an independent consultant to see whether his euth booth is legal. Switzerland is not a scandi country. This is not legal approval by the government. Third: Sweden has just as high percentage of foreign born population as the US. If anything I would argue american cultural identity is much stronger than Sweden's. Racial and cultural homogeneity is such a tired and lazy argument against safety nets I won't even bother to address it. It's a non sequitur at this point.

Consultant32452 5y ago

I don't believe communities will bond together as long as the state provides a fake feeling of social security (lower case). The state came in and declared itself the entity you turn to when times are tough: you lost your job, became disabled/sick, need daycare/schooling for your kids, etc. Now, instead of having relationships with your community, you have a relationship with the state. With the modern design of communities with powerful governments, you will only find small pockets where people have chosen to come together for some higher purpose like religious communities. And yes of course small/random exceptions to these rules will exist, but this is how it works at scale.

EricE 5y ago
Exactly. Centralizing resources at the state level - whether it's financial, social or whatever - removes the biggest success factor: what's in it for me? A lot of people tend to look at that phrase cynically. I tend to be more pragmatic - no one is going to care about my needs more than I am. And if I go the 100% selfish path then no one else is going to want to interact with me, so it's in my self interest to NOT be a jerk - self governing. Start to break down those personal interdependencies (and remove some of those self governing mechanisms at the same time too) by inserting shortcuts around them - like substituting resources from government - and you start to see things break down. Just look at the effects of welfare on minority communities. Disincentives for young women from getting married and you have generations of kids, especially young males, without the influence of a father - and the results of that are pretty apparent. As others point out, even crappy parents are often way better than the alternatives. The middle class of the black community in particular was rapidly expanding post WWII - until the "great society" welfare programs kicked in, with pretty devastating results - to them, anyway. It was a boon for politicians who now had power over an ever growing and dependent base.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  Your romanticization of post WWII conditions is highly inaccurate. Black middle class expanded because of migration insofar as segregation and maltreatment allowed. Take Silicon Valley. Segregation was legal and often preferred there until 1964 so the growing Black middle class was systematically denied entry in the 1950s to the growing job potential there. How many Blacks worked at HP in 1960s, or Intel in 1970s? How many Blacks worked at a mechanic shop or a cleaning service or a coffee place or any auxiliary business in Silicon Valley in the post WWII era, so their children could gain a foothold in the schools and the massive wealth creation engine? How many Black dental hygienists were there in Santa Clara county? Secretaries? Schoolteachers? Firefighters? How many Black friends did Steve Jobs have in grade school in the 1960s?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    There was less income inequality between blacks and whites during Jim Crowe than today. You can expand that to almost every measure of well-being like broken families, suicide rates, criminality, etc. This is obviously not a post advocating for Jim Crowe. But it is a post that is asking for an explanation as to why blacks are doing so much worse compared to whites today than they were during Jim Crowe. Do you believe we've gotten more racist?
    - erosenbe0 5y ago
      First of all, your claims about well being are nonsense. Use a real statistic like literacy or average number of lost teeth. The white-Black literacy disparity or dental health disparity is clearly lower than 1950. Also, none of your claimed income statistics are sufficiently granular to start a discussion since the average Black American worker may be something like 10 years younger than the average white American worker and also a weighted average by county of residence shows that Blacks live in places with lower wages compared to whites. Edit: you're not wrong that social problems have changed and some could be due to government interventions but you paint a broad brush that is not accurate and sounds like a talking point blurb
KittenInABox 5y ago
Does this track actually track with places where the government has largely ignored, such as lgbtqia and immigrant communities? Would anyone reasonably describe undocumented immigrants as having a community that is more robust, bonding together, and having less folks slip through the cracks than a well-funded government with a strong safety net could provide? How is the lgbtqia community going to fund trans people's surgeries and medications, and are they doing it better than what a well-funded healthcare system with minimal bigotry towards trans medical needs would do? In turn, does this mean we can extrapolate and figure out whether or not more social safety net containing countries, like say the nordic countries, do they have a lesser sense of community than somalia?
- specialist 5y ago
  > ...does this mean we can extrapolate and figure out whether or not more social safety net containing countries... I've long assumed that financial insecurity leads to all sorts of bad outcomes. Alcoholism, abuse, suicide, etc. The damage spanning generations and very hard to heal. So I support any and all efforts to improve that security. Universal healthcare, universal childcare, affordable housing, living wages, parental leave, small business loans. Name it, I probably support it. In other words, Nordic style social democracy, or whatever it's called. But in truth, I don't actually know that kids in Denmark and Norway do better than in my home state. Overall. I feel like this is something I should know. I have friends who work on progressive policy issues. So I know tidbits. For instance, that generously investing in preschool greatly improves the lifetime outcomes of those kids. But I don't even know where to look for population level comparisons. And my quick foraging online was fruitless.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
specialist 5y ago
What policies do you advocate for reducing child abuse?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I don't have a good solution to child abuse and have never seen a good solution in practice anywhere in the world. Are you aware of any organizations or collections of individuals that are responsible for more child abuse and death than the governments of the world?
  - specialist 5y ago
    The whole world? Perhaps start by comparing child abuse per capita, see if there's any correlations?
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Are you aware of any country that has implemented a set of policies that obviously and dramatically reduced child abuse? I see cultural variances, wealth correlations, etc. But never have I seen a program or simple set of programs that looks anything like a silver bullet on child abuse. You could probably convince me of some programs that are beneficial (even if not a silver bullet), you are unlikely to be able to convince me that the benefits outweigh the costs of death and suffering to children from things like war, sanctions, food tariffs, etc. The state is always the biggest abuser.
      - specialist 5y ago
        > The state is always the biggest abuser. Providing schools and health care is morally equivalent to waging war?
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        You can have schools and healthcare without the state. The cost of having the state provide those services is all the things that come along with the state including war, forced starvation through sanctions, etc.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I really feel like you would benefit from learning more about what life was like before the advent of social safety nets. What charity there was was woefully insufficient for the need, and one often only qualified if they were of a particular religious group. Mostly, people were at the mercy of their family. I know that sounds like a 'good thing' but go read biographies of the time. People were forced to endure horrific abuse by their close or extended families simply because they had no where else to go. The state providing it's citizens a basic foundational safety net is a good thing. There are tons of things that have broken down social cohesion, but safety nets are not one of them. Have a look at the scandi countries.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  We're not talking about breaking down social cohesion in the sense of total chaos in the streets. We're talking about neighbors knowing each other and taking care of each other. Loneliness and depression are at all time highs despite the largest social safety nets in history. Cherry picking a few of the wealthiest countries in the world that are racially and culturally homogeneous is not very helpful. One of those scandi countries just announced suicide pods where you can go kill yourself because so many people want to. It's fine to say the social programs are worth the cost, but don't deny the cost.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    This comment is so all over the place I don't really know where to begin. First, I would argue it's easier to know and care for one another when one's basic needs are met. You're simply moving up the maslow hierarchy. Second: I googled this. Some inventor in Switzerland hires an independent consultant to see whether his euth booth is legal. Switzerland is not a scandi country. This is not legal approval by the government. Third: Sweden has just as high percentage of foreign born population as the US. If anything I would argue american cultural identity is much stronger than Sweden's. Racial and cultural homogeneity is such a tired and lazy argument against safety nets I won't even bother to address it. It's a non sequitur at this point.