5 ms·

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe

I suspect that all the programs meant to help people are actually a part of the problem. Not directly, because helping people doesn't really hurt (except maybe in a "don't feed the wild animals" sort of way, but most consider that negligible). But more in a "somebody else's problem" or a "bystander effect" sort of way. In other words, the existence of programs to help people in need -- and worse, large federally funded and administrated programs -- make people feel as though it's not their problem and also that they're already doing something to help: paying their taxes and not voting against these programs. I say large federally funded programs are worse only because that makes the responsibility far more diffuse and the ability to influence ever more limited. So the programs to help aren't directly bad, but the knock-on psychological effect is that they absolve people of any personal need to help (since they're already helping in a very vague and miniscule way) and that leads them to not take any (additional) direct action. It feels like the inverse case of the tragedy of the commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Kurtz79 12y ago
You are making the assumption that without these programs people would actually do something themselves to solve other's problems. In my opinion most people would just try to rationalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis Government funded programs might be inefficient and open to abuses, but are better than the real alternative that would be doing nothing at all.
- msandford 12y ago
  So I'm not railing against government programs because they're "bad" and in fact I'm not necessarily even opposed to them. I'm trying to explain a set of psychological effects that I suspect influence the way our society approaches these kinds of problems.
germinalphrase 12y ago
Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without gov't funded education?
- mrwarn 12y ago
  Do you believe our population is effectively educated with government funded education?
  - germinalphrase 12y ago
    No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it. If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools. I do, however, believe that in absence of a publicly funded education system a large segment of our population would simply be locked out of educational opportunities. How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?
    - msandford 12y ago
      > How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees? You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes. Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/no kids meaning that the best you can get is a 50% "discount" over directly funding instead of funding via taxes.
      - germinalphrase 12y ago
        Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding. When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier (and education is filled with outliers).
jellicle 12y ago
But we've had thousands of years of testing of your hypothesis, and no, individuals do not step up in any great number to solve massive societal problems of poverty. Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective.
- msandford 12y ago
  We also had thousands of years where basically everyone was poor and there wasn't anywhere near enough production so that there was a hope or a prayer of not everyone being poor. The middle class is a relatively recent phenomena. A great example of this is "The $3500 shirt" article that made it to HN a while ago: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l... > Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective. I was under the impression that the whole point of the article -- and also the book -- was that the programs in place currently are not effective. If they were, there would be no "Mary Sue"s, there'd be only "Miriam"s and there would be no problem.

Kurtz79 12y ago

You are making the assumption that without these programs people would actually do something themselves to solve other's problems. In my opinion most people would just try to rationalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis Government funded programs might be inefficient and open to abuses, but are better than the real alternative that would be doing nothing at all.

msandford 12y ago
So I'm not railing against government programs because they're "bad" and in fact I'm not necessarily even opposed to them. I'm trying to explain a set of psychological effects that I suspect influence the way our society approaches these kinds of problems.

germinalphrase 12y ago

Do you believe that our population would effectively self-educate without gov't funded education?

mrwarn 12y ago
Do you believe our population is effectively educated with government funded education?
- germinalphrase 12y ago
  No, I don't. However, I believe this is a problem associated with how we approach education as a task rather than how we fund it. If it were merely an example of "gov't funded education" causes poor education then we would likely see significant gains when private education models are used to replace public schools. Currently, gains with private/charter schools are flat compared to public schools. I do, however, believe that in absence of a publicly funded education system a large segment of our population would simply be locked out of educational opportunities. How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees?
  - msandford 12y ago
    > How is a family that already struggles for basic necessities going to find an extra ~6-10k a year to pay for private school fees? You do realize that those people already do pay for their children's education right? It's just indirect through property taxes. Yes people who don't have kids in school also contribute but it's not as though there are 10x as many people without kids as with kids, it might be 50/50 kids/no kids meaning that the best you can get is a 50% "discount" over directly funding instead of funding via taxes.
    - germinalphrase 12y ago
      Setting aside that progressive taxation probably means that the population I was discussing isn't significantly funding their children's education (and would likewise not be able to cover the actual cost of education if they were called on that burden) -- I was responding to mrwarn's comment asking if gov't funded education is working, to which I responded that public schooling is not working, but that the problem is not dependent on the source of funding. When we turn public schools into private schools (as Chicago has done by the dozens in the last few years) we don't see educational improvements when the students population remains the same. When we do, it's modest or an outlier (and education is filled with outliers).

jellicle 12y ago

But we've had thousands of years of testing of your hypothesis, and no, individuals do not step up in any great number to solve massive societal problems of poverty. Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective.

msandford 12y ago
We also had thousands of years where basically everyone was poor and there wasn't anywhere near enough production so that there was a hope or a prayer of not everyone being poor. The middle class is a relatively recent phenomena. A great example of this is "The $3500 shirt" article that made it to HN a while ago: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-lesson-in.html http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l... > Which is why we invented governmental action to solve them. Which has proved extremely effective. I was under the impression that the whole point of the article -- and also the book -- was that the programs in place currently are not effective. If they were, there would be no "Mary Sue"s, there'd be only "Miriam"s and there would be no problem.