5 ms·

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 in

by 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.
- mrow84 12y ago
  I agree that the distinction between, to quote you, "society denying people opportunities directly, and people not taking opportunities that they have because of some self-fulfilling belief" is very important. I also agree that, as you observe, it is important precisely because understanding the causes of some problem should, in a rational world, inform the policies selected to address that problem. The counterpoint I would offer to your statement about the "left wing" analysis of such situations is that, to use similarly broad strokes, the "right" has a tendency, quite strong at times, to completely dismiss the importance, or even existence, of "self-fulfilling beliefs", and correspondingly prescribes exactly the kind of "just get on with it" solutions that I mentioned before. Their political opponents, still observing the problem, are then bound to highlight that, given that the problem does still exist, and that obvious direct causes can be ruled out (assuming they can), then the "self-fulfilling beliefs" must be important. Although you seem to hold similar opinions to me regarding the importance of understanding these effects and addressing them if they are found to be important, I would suggest that your instincts appear to question whether or not these effects even exist at all. Taking your first paragraph: > 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. This, to me, looks like an implicit rejection of the importance of these "self-fulfilling effects". By claiming it is political, or is being used in a political way, you appear to be suggesting that her experience is either not real, or is unrepresentative, and is simply being isolated to gain traction for some policy or other. Most importantly, this suggestion appears to be made on the basis that it is unquantifiable experience, rather than from the actual content. Rejecting anecdotal claims is unscientific is reasonable, and you grant that she may not be directly making "claims" herself. What I would caution against is your (apparent) assumption that the use of her experience to highlight an issue (by the editors of the guardian) can be quite safely rejected simply by virtue of the fact that her experience is difficult to quantify. The most appropriate response, it seems to me, is to demand rigorous research on the subject. If, however, I have misunderstood you, and this wasn't your intention, then please accept my apology in advance.

by mrow84 12y ago

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.
mrow84 12y ago
I agree that the distinction between, to quote you, "society denying people opportunities directly, and people not taking opportunities that they have because of some self-fulfilling belief" is very important. I also agree that, as you observe, it is important precisely because understanding the causes of some problem should, in a rational world, inform the policies selected to address that problem. The counterpoint I would offer to your statement about the "left wing" analysis of such situations is that, to use similarly broad strokes, the "right" has a tendency, quite strong at times, to completely dismiss the importance, or even existence, of "self-fulfilling beliefs", and correspondingly prescribes exactly the kind of "just get on with it" solutions that I mentioned before. Their political opponents, still observing the problem, are then bound to highlight that, given that the problem does still exist, and that obvious direct causes can be ruled out (assuming they can), then the "self-fulfilling beliefs" must be important. Although you seem to hold similar opinions to me regarding the importance of understanding these effects and addressing them if they are found to be important, I would suggest that your instincts appear to question whether or not these effects even exist at all. Taking your first paragraph: > 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. This, to me, looks like an implicit rejection of the importance of these "self-fulfilling effects". By claiming it is political, or is being used in a political way, you appear to be suggesting that her experience is either not real, or is unrepresentative, and is simply being isolated to gain traction for some policy or other. Most importantly, this suggestion appears to be made on the basis that it is unquantifiable experience, rather than from the actual content. Rejecting anecdotal claims is unscientific is reasonable, and you grant that she may not be directly making "claims" herself. What I would caution against is your (apparent) assumption that the use of her experience to highlight an issue (by the editors of the guardian) can be quite safely rejected simply by virtue of the fact that her experience is difficult to quantify. The most appropriate response, it seems to me, is to demand rigorous research on the subject. If, however, I have misunderstood you, and this wasn't your intention, then please accept my apology in advance.