5 ms·

I think a more charitable interpretation of the author statements are that she has an overwhelming feeling that she will never not be poor, and that feeling cau

by mrow84 12y ago

I think a more charitable interpretation of the author statements are that she has an overwhelming feeling that she will never not be poor, and that feeling causes her to make poor decisions, rather than believing that it is an inevitability in an intellectual sense. As the author suggests to, in the quote provided by chaostheory, this is akin to, or perhaps actually is, depression. That knowledge that this "feeling" is, to some extent, self-reinforcing, does not diminish its importance, or offer any easy solutions - anything along the lines of telling people to "just get on with things" isn't really constructive.

swatow 12y ago
Going with what your interpretation, I would consider wording it like that to be obfuscation by the author. The author is clearly arguing from a left wing viewpoint, and wants to emphasize lack of social mobility. Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. Like you say, if people do feel like this then it's important to understand it. But there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation.
- twisties 12y ago
  > there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation. When the feeling of hopelessness cripples you into a self-fulfilling prophecy, the two are one and the same.
- mrow84 12y ago
  It is worth bearing in mind that this was, as noted at the start of the guardian piece, originally written as a reply on a forum. I don't think it is best to interpret what the author has written as a political argument about the objective "external" nature of reality, but rather as a personal, subjective statement of her own experience. I think if you reread it in that light then it'll probably seem much more reasonable. > Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. To me, this statement is synonymous with the "telling people to "just get on with things"" that I was suggesting was not very helpful in my previous post. The key issue is that the things that compound her already difficult situation are not things that are easily quantified like the money in her bank account, but more intangible things like how she feels every day. These things are difficult to measure and so easy to dismiss, but that doesn't make them less significant for the people who experience them. edit: removed a word
  - swatow 12y ago
    It is very typical on the left for a personal account of the experience and psychology of being X to also be a political argument. Even if the author didn't intend it that way, it's certainly being used in the context of a political argument now. Note the replies by monk_e_boy and rayiner who take the statement on face value and argue that the payoff to education/savings is very small for poor people. I'm not saying that we should tell poor people to "just get over it". I'm saying that there is a very real difference between what is objectively true, and what some poor people feel to be true[1]. If we confuse these two, it's not possible to have a sensible discussion on the matter. I'm all for helping people out by trying to alleviate the psychological impact of poverty. Personally I favor European/Australian/NZ/Canada style welfare states, it seems like a proven approach. [1] And the "self fulfilling prophecy" doesn't remove this difference, because there is still a difference between society denying people opportunities directly, and people not taking opportunities that they have because of some self-fulfilling belief. EDIT: added footnote
    - pharke 12y ago
      Just for future reference, there are some extremely large differences between the social programs, how they are funded and administered, their scope and their availability in the countries you mentioned and among the countries that are members of the European Union. As a citizen of one of those countries, hearing such a statement sounds very much like what I would imagine saying "Personally I favour American/Russian/Chinese/Indian style capitalism, it seems like a proven approach" would sound like to a resident of one of those countries.
      - swatow 12y ago
        I think that the places I listed have more in common with each other than with the US with regard to welfare.
        ende 12y ago
        I think you would be surprised if you took the time to learn about the differences between these systems. Some of them are closer to the US than they are to each other.
Heyr 12y ago
Considering how many people in the world are poor, wouldn't you say that such "defeatist" thoughts are actually more realistic?

by mrow84 12y ago

swatow 12y ago

Going with what your interpretation, I would consider wording it like that to be obfuscation by the author. The author is clearly arguing from a left wing viewpoint, and wants to emphasize lack of social mobility. Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. Like you say, if people do feel like this then it's important to understand it. But there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation.

twisties 12y ago
> there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation. When the feeling of hopelessness cripples you into a self-fulfilling prophecy, the two are one and the same.
mrow84 12y ago
It is worth bearing in mind that this was, as noted at the start of the guardian piece, originally written as a reply on a forum. I don't think it is best to interpret what the author has written as a political argument about the objective "external" nature of reality, but rather as a personal, subjective statement of her own experience. I think if you reread it in that light then it'll probably seem much more reasonable. > Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad. To me, this statement is synonymous with the "telling people to "just get on with things"" that I was suggesting was not very helpful in my previous post. The key issue is that the things that compound her already difficult situation are not things that are easily quantified like the money in her bank account, but more intangible things like how she feels every day. These things are difficult to measure and so easy to dismiss, but that doesn't make them less significant for the people who experience them. edit: removed a word
- swatow 12y ago
  It is very typical on the left for a personal account of the experience and psychology of being X to also be a political argument. Even if the author didn't intend it that way, it's certainly being used in the context of a political argument now. Note the replies by monk_e_boy and rayiner who take the statement on face value and argue that the payoff to education/savings is very small for poor people. I'm not saying that we should tell poor people to "just get over it". I'm saying that there is a very real difference between what is objectively true, and what some poor people feel to be true[1]. If we confuse these two, it's not possible to have a sensible discussion on the matter. I'm all for helping people out by trying to alleviate the psychological impact of poverty. Personally I favor European/Australian/NZ/Canada style welfare states, it seems like a proven approach. [1] And the "self fulfilling prophecy" doesn't remove this difference, because there is still a difference between society denying people opportunities directly, and people not taking opportunities that they have because of some self-fulfilling belief. EDIT: added footnote
  - pharke 12y ago
    Just for future reference, there are some extremely large differences between the social programs, how they are funded and administered, their scope and their availability in the countries you mentioned and among the countries that are members of the European Union. As a citizen of one of those countries, hearing such a statement sounds very much like what I would imagine saying "Personally I favour American/Russian/Chinese/Indian style capitalism, it seems like a proven approach" would sound like to a resident of one of those countries.
    - swatow 12y ago
      I think that the places I listed have more in common with each other than with the US with regard to welfare.
      - ende 12y ago
        I think you would be surprised if you took the time to learn about the differences between these systems. Some of them are closer to the US than they are to each other.

Heyr 12y ago

Considering how many people in the world are poor, wouldn't you say that such "defeatist" thoughts are actually more realistic?