11 ms·

>Despite decades of explanations and interventions, these efforts have fallen short in one important way: what I call the assumption of free-floating mindsets.

>Despite decades of explanations and interventions, these efforts have fallen short in one important way: what I call the assumption of free-floating mindsets. This assumption is not only held by researchers but also policymakers and charity workers engaged in well-meaning efforts to tackle poverty in rich countries Not sure we need to invent new phrases here, what's being debated is idealism and materialism. Thinking of individual 'minds' as primary actors is popular because as a society we're still stuck in some sort of Enlightenment/Christian mix where we assume 'success' is the result of moral virtue, good works, reason and so on. People are allergic to material, systemic, biological explanations of poverty because it messes with a lot of moral assumptions and thus we're stuck in this therapeutic discourse.

classified 5y ago
"I'm rich because I deserve it" feels a lot better than "I'm rich because I happened to win some unfair lottery". The latter will always be a tough sell. And the brand of Christianity prevalent in the U.S. is especially prone to the former.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The latter will always be a tough sell. And the brand of Christianity prevalent in the U.S. is especially prone to the former. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology And then there's the Book of Job: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  The most important part of any system is how people feel about it. If people feel it's just and good, and that good for others begets good for them, then they are more likely to be and do good. No law, no tax, no specific policy, will ever have as much power over how well things are going for everyone as the zeitgeist itself does. It's better for all of us if we believe people get rich because they deserve it, and if we don't believe it, we need to do what we need to do to get us back to feeling that way.
  - gjm11 5y ago
    Suppose some rich people actually got rich by dishonesty, exploitation and selfishness. Believing that rich people get rich because they deserve it will then mean either (1) believing that dishonesty, exploitation and selfishness are good or (2) believing a bunch of falsehoods about how those rich people got rich. #1 is clearly harmful, to the individuals involved and to society as a whole. #2 is probably also harmful, not so much because it matters what everyone thinks about how particular rich people got that way as because believing those falsehoods probably means believing a bunch of other falsehoods about, e.g., how business and society actually work, and it's probably bad if everyone believes a lot of false things about that. Suppose some rich people actually got rich mostly by good luck. Believing that rich people get rich because they deserve it will then mean overlooking the importance of luck, and believing that people who don't get rich deserve not to be, and probably to believing that people who are poor deserve to be poor. That's harmful because it begets a lack of sympathy towards others in need. There are no doubt positive effects too; e.g., if you think that hard work reliably makes people rich then you may be more likely to work hard, and maybe it's good for society if everyone is willing to work hard. (Though I have my doubts about how well that sort of self-deception can actually be expected to work.) But it's not at all obvious, at least to me, that the overall effects are good, because of harms like the ones I described above. (... Maybe you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize for missing your point. But it looks to me as if you meant what you wrote.)
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > It's better for all of us if we believe people get rich because they deserve it, and if we don't believe it, we need to do what we need to do to get us back to feeling that way. If you mean that in a sense where we should be doing all in our power to make sure that only those deserving enough get rich (comabtting corruption, stripping people of ill-gotten fortunes, preventing trust building and unfair competition, removing money from politics, stopping government welfare for the rich, etc) so that the ideal is closer to reality, than I agree. However, most people supporting this world view want to do just the opposite: take it as a given that rich people are deserving of their wealth, and so using all of societies resources to help the rich to get richer, since by definition they are most worthy. This is a deeply dangerous and disgusting tactic that has been causing significant harm to societies all over the world.
- bannedbybros 5y ago
slibhb 5y ago
...or we just assume that, on average, good works, reason, and virtue are a good strategy in the long run whether or not they necessarily lead to success (or are a prerequisite for it). > People are allergic to material, systemic, biological explanations of poverty because it messes with a lot of moral assumptions and thus we're stuck in this therapeutic discourse. Really? Because I hear a lot of people talking about systemic explanations for everything. Doesn't seem to help anyone. Score one for the Christians as far as I'm concerned.
- fineIllregister 5y ago
  > I hear a lot of people talking about systemic explanations for everything. Doesn't seem to help anyone. Those supporting a systematic approach raised the child tax credit in the US, lifting over 3 million children out of poverty last year. It helped them.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    That's just a fine example of trying to get the best bang for the buck. Thinking you can even have a "systematic approach" to either explaining or mitigating something as complex as poverty, deprivation and marginalization can only be described as the highest sort of arrogance.
    - carapace 5y ago
      The word you're looking for is hubris. The systematic mind looks for the systematic approach. It doesn't help to fault them (policy-makers and their constituents) for it, at least if you're trying to bring them to Jesus. They're going to pull on the levers they can reach, eh?
      - gjm11 5y ago
        Somewhere in this subthread, confusion has arisen between "systemic" (arising from, or affecting, a system as a whole) and "systematic" (methodical, using a fixed procedure, consistent). Saying that the causes of poverty are systemic (i.e., it's not so much that some people have character or habits or whatever that make them poor, as that our society is structured in a way that ensures that a lot of people will be poor) has nothing to do with saying that it should be attacked in a systematic way (i.e., that we should apply some consistent procedure to deal with poverty when we find it).
vt85 5y ago
[dead]
aunty_helen 5y ago
I think you've misinterpreted what the author meant by a free-floating midset. If I said to you, you'll be more successful if adopt materialism and you go and do it without relation to your environment as a budist monk, that would be an example of a free-floating mindset. The point the author is trying to raise, is that you can't just tell someone to adapt an entreprenurial go-getter mindset because the environment they're in isn't well suited to that. Effectively, they are saying the poor are well adapted and it's our point of view of the poor which is wrong. To better help people in these situations we need to change tact from the "I'm sucessful, be like me" approach.
hackernewds 5y ago
> biological explanations of poverty That's brave territory. But nonetheless, we shouldn't be prevented from discussing, let alone researching it. Naval Ravikant talks about this quite a bit, - universities escalated to establish themselves to higher levels of truth-authority since the 50s given the objectiveness and fruits of hard sciences, (physics, biology, chemistry, microeconomics). However, now soft social "sciences" such as Gender studies and macroeconomics (you know it's not a hard science because it says Science behind it) have bullied their way to the front. Wherein, the hard sciences are being displaced yet cemented with the same aforementioned authority - but with the reluctance, or even sabotage to objectively discuss, let alone research dissenting ideas. Especially under duress is Evolutionary Biology, here is a prime example - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...
- rilezg 5y ago
  Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may be considered a sub-field of the latter, but I think it is important to be clear as much of the controversy lies in attempts to use DNA to explain/predict the personality/behavior of a modern individual). I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view). I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.
- 5y ago
calibas 5y ago
There's also the contradictory belief that there's something "holy" about poverty and something "evil" about material wealth. Taking contradictory positions means you cover all bases, and can argue either point when convenient, though it creates some hellish cognitive dissonance for the people trying to make sense of it...

classified 5y ago

"I'm rich because I deserve it" feels a lot better than "I'm rich because I happened to win some unfair lottery". The latter will always be a tough sell. And the brand of Christianity prevalent in the U.S. is especially prone to the former.

throw0101a 5y ago
> The latter will always be a tough sell. And the brand of Christianity prevalent in the U.S. is especially prone to the former. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology And then there's the Book of Job: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job
BobbyJo 5y ago
The most important part of any system is how people feel about it. If people feel it's just and good, and that good for others begets good for them, then they are more likely to be and do good. No law, no tax, no specific policy, will ever have as much power over how well things are going for everyone as the zeitgeist itself does. It's better for all of us if we believe people get rich because they deserve it, and if we don't believe it, we need to do what we need to do to get us back to feeling that way.
- gjm11 5y ago
  Suppose some rich people actually got rich by dishonesty, exploitation and selfishness. Believing that rich people get rich because they deserve it will then mean either (1) believing that dishonesty, exploitation and selfishness are good or (2) believing a bunch of falsehoods about how those rich people got rich. #1 is clearly harmful, to the individuals involved and to society as a whole. #2 is probably also harmful, not so much because it matters what everyone thinks about how particular rich people got that way as because believing those falsehoods probably means believing a bunch of other falsehoods about, e.g., how business and society actually work, and it's probably bad if everyone believes a lot of false things about that. Suppose some rich people actually got rich mostly by good luck. Believing that rich people get rich because they deserve it will then mean overlooking the importance of luck, and believing that people who don't get rich deserve not to be, and probably to believing that people who are poor deserve to be poor. That's harmful because it begets a lack of sympathy towards others in need. There are no doubt positive effects too; e.g., if you think that hard work reliably makes people rich then you may be more likely to work hard, and maybe it's good for society if everyone is willing to work hard. (Though I have my doubts about how well that sort of self-deception can actually be expected to work.) But it's not at all obvious, at least to me, that the overall effects are good, because of harms like the ones I described above. (... Maybe you were being sarcastic, in which case I apologize for missing your point. But it looks to me as if you meant what you wrote.)
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > It's better for all of us if we believe people get rich because they deserve it, and if we don't believe it, we need to do what we need to do to get us back to feeling that way. If you mean that in a sense where we should be doing all in our power to make sure that only those deserving enough get rich (comabtting corruption, stripping people of ill-gotten fortunes, preventing trust building and unfair competition, removing money from politics, stopping government welfare for the rich, etc) so that the ideal is closer to reality, than I agree. However, most people supporting this world view want to do just the opposite: take it as a given that rich people are deserving of their wealth, and so using all of societies resources to help the rich to get richer, since by definition they are most worthy. This is a deeply dangerous and disgusting tactic that has been causing significant harm to societies all over the world.
bannedbybros 5y ago

slibhb 5y ago

...or we just assume that, on average, good works, reason, and virtue are a good strategy in the long run whether or not they necessarily lead to success (or are a prerequisite for it). > People are allergic to material, systemic, biological explanations of poverty because it messes with a lot of moral assumptions and thus we're stuck in this therapeutic discourse. Really? Because I hear a lot of people talking about systemic explanations for everything. Doesn't seem to help anyone. Score one for the Christians as far as I'm concerned.

fineIllregister 5y ago
> I hear a lot of people talking about systemic explanations for everything. Doesn't seem to help anyone. Those supporting a systematic approach raised the child tax credit in the US, lifting over 3 million children out of poverty last year. It helped them.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  That's just a fine example of trying to get the best bang for the buck. Thinking you can even have a "systematic approach" to either explaining or mitigating something as complex as poverty, deprivation and marginalization can only be described as the highest sort of arrogance.
  - carapace 5y ago
    The word you're looking for is hubris. The systematic mind looks for the systematic approach. It doesn't help to fault them (policy-makers and their constituents) for it, at least if you're trying to bring them to Jesus. They're going to pull on the levers they can reach, eh?
    - gjm11 5y ago
      Somewhere in this subthread, confusion has arisen between "systemic" (arising from, or affecting, a system as a whole) and "systematic" (methodical, using a fixed procedure, consistent). Saying that the causes of poverty are systemic (i.e., it's not so much that some people have character or habits or whatever that make them poor, as that our society is structured in a way that ensures that a lot of people will be poor) has nothing to do with saying that it should be attacked in a systematic way (i.e., that we should apply some consistent procedure to deal with poverty when we find it).

vt85 5y ago

[dead]

aunty_helen 5y ago

I think you've misinterpreted what the author meant by a free-floating midset. If I said to you, you'll be more successful if adopt materialism and you go and do it without relation to your environment as a budist monk, that would be an example of a free-floating mindset. The point the author is trying to raise, is that you can't just tell someone to adapt an entreprenurial go-getter mindset because the environment they're in isn't well suited to that. Effectively, they are saying the poor are well adapted and it's our point of view of the poor which is wrong. To better help people in these situations we need to change tact from the "I'm sucessful, be like me" approach.

hackernewds 5y ago

> biological explanations of poverty That's brave territory. But nonetheless, we shouldn't be prevented from discussing, let alone researching it. Naval Ravikant talks about this quite a bit, - universities escalated to establish themselves to higher levels of truth-authority since the 50s given the objectiveness and fruits of hard sciences, (physics, biology, chemistry, microeconomics). However, now soft social "sciences" such as Gender studies and macroeconomics (you know it's not a hard science because it says Science behind it) have bullied their way to the front. Wherein, the hard sciences are being displaced yet cemented with the same aforementioned authority - but with the reluctance, or even sabotage to objectively discuss, let alone research dissenting ideas. Especially under duress is Evolutionary Biology, here is a prime example - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressiv...

rilezg 5y ago
Regarding the linked article, I feel it is important to clarify that the field under duress is 'Behavioral Genetics', not 'Evolutionary Biology' (the former may be considered a sub-field of the latter, but I think it is important to be clear as much of the controversy lies in attempts to use DNA to explain/predict the personality/behavior of a modern individual). I am also curious why you consider microeconomics is a 'hard' science? As someone with a BA in economics (truly the pinnacle of academic understanding), I would not consider it any less wishy-washy than macroeconomics (both of which are 'soft social sciences', in my view). I can appreciate that social sciences are often vague and messy and never seem to offer universal truths, but, when trying to understand human behavior, I also feel it is important to say that we live in a society. At least for me, I truly believe much of my behavior and habits are dictated by what I learned from the people around me and the stories I have been exposed to throughout life. And then some academic comes along and claims to understand who I am and who I will be and that it is all encoded in my DNA? It will take a lot more than wishy-washy social-science statistical analysis to convince me of that. Sure, there could be a discussion about fate and free will, but I do not see much use in that, I certainly do not see the need to bring DNA into the conversation, and I definitely do not want the government looking to genetics for solutions.
5y ago

calibas 5y ago

There's also the contradictory belief that there's something "holy" about poverty and something "evil" about material wealth. Taking contradictory positions means you cover all bases, and can argue either point when convenient, though it creates some hellish cognitive dissonance for the people trying to make sense of it...