3 ms·

Perception can be manipulated in many ways. People get used to things and give for granted things that used to be luxuries a few generations back (see "hedonic

Perception can be manipulated in many ways. People get used to things and give for granted things that used to be luxuries a few generations back (see "hedonic treadmill") Combine that with active participants who control the media landscape and have a vested interest in painting a bleak picture so they can be the ones fixing it. And then of course there is the fact that things are of course objectively hard for many people because not everybody can be the average person. So in a sense it's correct to say that these numbers don't capture reality while being technically correct. And that's because reality is much more complex than the things those numbers measure. The question is: are those indicators useful? Provided you understand what they actually measure, can that be used as a control signal to help make choices that will go in the right direction and improve quality of life for everybody? Perhaps the improvement will be marginal and not everybody's problems will be fixed, but is it unreasonable to think that problems cannot be fixed by a quick single intervention and that instead they will compound over time? Look at the progress humanity has made in so many fronts. Ask anybody to pick a time in history where they would like to travel back and have a better life. The most frequent answer is either now or a few years ago when they were young and everything was better (likely because of nostalgia for youth or childhood). Very few people would really want to be the average person in an era with poor sanitation, corporeal punishment, no education, illiteracy, expensive and faint artificial lighting, widespread diseases, non-existent dental care, low life expectancy

_1tem 2y ago
> Perception can be manipulated in many ways. Numbers are even easier to manipulate.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  I think perception about what numbers mean is even easier to manipulate
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    There are so many metrics. The act of selecting one metric or another metric to drive a point across is a key way to "lie with numbers". The numbers themselves are usually correct but they paint a misleading picture nevertheless. A similar thing happens with fiddling with the axis on graphs, e.g. not starting a graph at zero or using the wrong scale.
portaouflop 2y ago
So the people who are fed up with how things are currently going are according to your argument here either - manipulated / brainwashed - entitled / spoiled - outliers (the few who have it bad are too loud). - the problems can’t be fixed anyway - don’t realise how much worse it was in the past ? I disagree that the sentiment of the general population is not a useful indicator of how good things are going for the general population. I think it is the best indicator, but people in power (and I would count most on this forum among then) don’t want to see anything that threatens their status quo.
- xvector 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
- ithkuil 2y ago
  Yes people are fed up. Nobody is arguing that people are happy and somebody is misrepresenting that. What I'm trying to say is that there is an explanation for why this sentiment exists despite measures of material wealth and economic success being positive. The fact that there is an explanation doesn't magically make people feel better. I think it all boils down to the attitude one has towards seeking explaination. One is a scientific approach where one aims at understanding the dynamics of a phenomenon in a way that is detached from it as much as possible. The other approach is moral one where one seeks an explanation in order to convince oneself (and others) how one should feel about it. "You shouldn't complain, you have indoor plumbing your grandparents had to pump water from a well; shut up". I'm not making the latter, moral, argument. I'm trying to make the scientific one
  - bluerobotcat 2y ago
    Normative approach versus a descriptive/empirical approach.
b112 2y ago
Tangently, being poor in a wealthy area is far different than being poor in a poor area. An example being "cast offs". In my early 20s, I moved from a poorer rural area, to a well to do city suburb. Walking to various places, I noticed things cast aside that would never, ever be thrown away in the area I grew up in. Examples being: * an expensive propane bbq, with damage to one of the hoses. A $10 repair and I had a bbq worth hundreds. (Even looked brand new) * A set of cutlery, and plates. One of 8 plates had a crack. The cutlery was missing one fork out of a set of 8. (For a young man eating off of one plate, this was a big bonus) * a coat rack, mild discolouration (10 cents in paint out of a spray can to fix) Anyhow, you get the point. Very usable items cast off, and I would never have found this treasure trove in a poor neighbourhood. Just being surrounded by a society of greater wealth, means better access generally.
- wyclif 2y ago
  I take your point. I was at a very preppy east coast school whose name you've definitely heard of. One day I was walking past a high-end apartment complex where I knew a lot of sorority girls lived. There was one of those expensive chrome-plated Kirby vacuums in a trash dumpster. I took a closer look and it appeared to be brand new. I pulled it out of the dumpster and carried it down the street to my much more modest apartment complex and plugged it in out on the terrace. Turns out the only thing wrong was the dust bag was full. I had some extra bags, so it didn't cost me anything to get one of the best vacuums money can buy almost brand new. I couldn't believe someone had pitched it in the bin just because the bag was full. But apparently wealthy people do stuff like that all the time.
- indemnity 2y ago
  Not having to be scanning for threats 24/7 also frees up mental bandwidth for more productive activities. We moved from a dangerous inner city suburb where that was the case, to the edges of an affluent enclave as a kid, and my grades improving and extra curricular activities like getting good at computers and getting a holiday job which kickstarted my tech career, all followed that move.
RobotToaster 2y ago
> not everybody can be the average person. Averages are often misleading. If one person is a billionaire, and 999 have nothing, the average person is a millionaire. That average is of little comfort to the 999 however.
harimau777 2y ago
It feels like the opposite is true. Things that used to be fairly common like owning a home or living in a major city have now become luxuries.
- gnopgnip 2y ago
  In New York City the homeownership rate has been about the same over the last 25 years, about 32%, about about 1% from pre pandemic. Looking at the national average it is about the same 65.5%, up about 1% from 5 years ago, with small changes over the last 50 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
  - tlogan 2y ago
    In 2024, the average age of homebuyers hit a record high of 56. This highlights how any statistic can be used to support a narrative. For instance, while the national average for homeownership rates remains relatively stable, it now comes with the reality that people are working harder and longer to achieve it. On the flip side, homes today are often larger and more feature-rich than in the past, which some might argue offsets the challenge. The real question is: which of these factors—delayed homeownership or improved home quality—has a greater impact on how people perceive their economic well-being?
    - AstralStorm 2y ago
      Compare the savings rates and this picture no longer looks rosy due to data disappearing when averaged out. What you have is a bimodal distribution of people who almost never will own a house and those who will. And a bunch of rich people who have whole fleets of houses. This is why nobody should ever use averages and rates alone without a supporting histogram.

_1tem 2y ago

> Perception can be manipulated in many ways. Numbers are even easier to manipulate.

ithkuil 2y ago
I think perception about what numbers mean is even easier to manipulate
- ithkuil 2y ago
  There are so many metrics. The act of selecting one metric or another metric to drive a point across is a key way to "lie with numbers". The numbers themselves are usually correct but they paint a misleading picture nevertheless. A similar thing happens with fiddling with the axis on graphs, e.g. not starting a graph at zero or using the wrong scale.

portaouflop 2y ago

So the people who are fed up with how things are currently going are according to your argument here either - manipulated / brainwashed - entitled / spoiled - outliers (the few who have it bad are too loud). - the problems can’t be fixed anyway - don’t realise how much worse it was in the past ? I disagree that the sentiment of the general population is not a useful indicator of how good things are going for the general population. I think it is the best indicator, but people in power (and I would count most on this forum among then) don’t want to see anything that threatens their status quo.

xvector 2y ago
[flagged]
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  [flagged]
ithkuil 2y ago
Yes people are fed up. Nobody is arguing that people are happy and somebody is misrepresenting that. What I'm trying to say is that there is an explanation for why this sentiment exists despite measures of material wealth and economic success being positive. The fact that there is an explanation doesn't magically make people feel better. I think it all boils down to the attitude one has towards seeking explaination. One is a scientific approach where one aims at understanding the dynamics of a phenomenon in a way that is detached from it as much as possible. The other approach is moral one where one seeks an explanation in order to convince oneself (and others) how one should feel about it. "You shouldn't complain, you have indoor plumbing your grandparents had to pump water from a well; shut up". I'm not making the latter, moral, argument. I'm trying to make the scientific one
- bluerobotcat 2y ago
  Normative approach versus a descriptive/empirical approach.

b112 2y ago

Tangently, being poor in a wealthy area is far different than being poor in a poor area. An example being "cast offs". In my early 20s, I moved from a poorer rural area, to a well to do city suburb. Walking to various places, I noticed things cast aside that would never, ever be thrown away in the area I grew up in. Examples being: * an expensive propane bbq, with damage to one of the hoses. A $10 repair and I had a bbq worth hundreds. (Even looked brand new) * A set of cutlery, and plates. One of 8 plates had a crack. The cutlery was missing one fork out of a set of 8. (For a young man eating off of one plate, this was a big bonus) * a coat rack, mild discolouration (10 cents in paint out of a spray can to fix) Anyhow, you get the point. Very usable items cast off, and I would never have found this treasure trove in a poor neighbourhood. Just being surrounded by a society of greater wealth, means better access generally.

wyclif 2y ago
I take your point. I was at a very preppy east coast school whose name you've definitely heard of. One day I was walking past a high-end apartment complex where I knew a lot of sorority girls lived. There was one of those expensive chrome-plated Kirby vacuums in a trash dumpster. I took a closer look and it appeared to be brand new. I pulled it out of the dumpster and carried it down the street to my much more modest apartment complex and plugged it in out on the terrace. Turns out the only thing wrong was the dust bag was full. I had some extra bags, so it didn't cost me anything to get one of the best vacuums money can buy almost brand new. I couldn't believe someone had pitched it in the bin just because the bag was full. But apparently wealthy people do stuff like that all the time.
indemnity 2y ago
Not having to be scanning for threats 24/7 also frees up mental bandwidth for more productive activities. We moved from a dangerous inner city suburb where that was the case, to the edges of an affluent enclave as a kid, and my grades improving and extra curricular activities like getting good at computers and getting a holiday job which kickstarted my tech career, all followed that move.

RobotToaster 2y ago

> not everybody can be the average person. Averages are often misleading. If one person is a billionaire, and 999 have nothing, the average person is a millionaire. That average is of little comfort to the 999 however.

harimau777 2y ago

It feels like the opposite is true. Things that used to be fairly common like owning a home or living in a major city have now become luxuries.

gnopgnip 2y ago
In New York City the homeownership rate has been about the same over the last 25 years, about 32%, about about 1% from pre pandemic. Looking at the national average it is about the same 65.5%, up about 1% from 5 years ago, with small changes over the last 50 years. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
- tlogan 2y ago
  In 2024, the average age of homebuyers hit a record high of 56. This highlights how any statistic can be used to support a narrative. For instance, while the national average for homeownership rates remains relatively stable, it now comes with the reality that people are working harder and longer to achieve it. On the flip side, homes today are often larger and more feature-rich than in the past, which some might argue offsets the challenge. The real question is: which of these factors—delayed homeownership or improved home quality—has a greater impact on how people perceive their economic well-being?
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    Compare the savings rates and this picture no longer looks rosy due to data disappearing when averaged out. What you have is a bimodal distribution of people who almost never will own a house and those who will. And a bunch of rich people who have whole fleets of houses. This is why nobody should ever use averages and rates alone without a supporting histogram.