The author definitely has an agenda to push. They equate saying personal responsibility is the way out of poverty to calling poor people morons. I suspect that the author has specific policy proposals in mind but is intentionally being vague because other people will likely find them extreme.
Science and research are funded in phases. So greater awareness and understanding of a particular problem can often fund the research towards finding solutions. I hear your frustration that there aren't proposed solutions here but I don't think that's the point of this--awareness is.
I do know some teachers who work with very high risk kids. I can imagine some of these findings presented in an appeal to get more funding for their work as they are horribly under resourced to meet the need.
If you don’t explain your intentions it comes off as brainwashing the viewer. Because otherwise they’re just mindlessly taking in whatever you’re telling them.
It's not clear but I think what it's signaling is a progressive ideal of taking ownership over the collective good / a rehabilitation mindset towards crime vs a punishment, based on the following that's meant to get the viewer to empathize with "failure" as an adult is due to factors beyond just personal responsibility.
> When we're young, we have so little control over their lives [...] Then we turn 18 and we're expected to be "adults" and figure things out.
>
> If we fail, we are punished.
>
> We are blamed for not going to college [...]
In case readers aren't familiar with The Pudding, they sometimes have an angle but are just as often interesting data explorations aimed at their intellectually curious audience. I don't think they need to have an agenda for every piece, although I understand the suspicion for people not familiar with their work.
Parenting approaches vary in nature and culture. Some feature high parental involvement and long childhoods, while others have very short childhoods, or none at all.
These are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages to both strategies. In a highly stressed environment individuals who are less dependent on parental protection will be more likely to survive. The advantage of long childhoods and high parental involvement is that the individual will evolve sophisticated behaviors.
To simply assume everyone is exactly the same at birth and modified by society to an outcome is a vast simplification that requires substantial scientific justification, you cannot just assume it given the variations of parenting we see in nature.
Some of your proposals sound bigoted. Open the borders. A family is, of course, a group of people who say they are a family. It need not be permanent, they might not have been a family last week, nor will they necessarily be a family next year. It's all very fluid and progressive. We wouldn't want to discourage the idea that there can be serial divorce and remarriage, picking up new step-siblings along the way.
You can’t have higher prosperity in the bottom deciles and unlimited supply of unskilled labor at the same time. If you think you can, do please enlighten us through what mechanism that could be achieved.
What's your concrete proposal? Restrict the web to material featuring a concrete proposals? Establish concentration camps to re-educate those who would publish material lacking in concrete proposals?
Is your concrete proposal that data should only be allowed to be collected and shared by people with a specific agenda to push?
The author definitely has an agenda to push. They equate saying personal responsibility is the way out of poverty to calling poor people morons. I suspect that the author has specific policy proposals in mind but is intentionally being vague because other people will likely find them extreme.
If there is no agenda to push, why publish ? /s
Science and research are funded in phases. So greater awareness and understanding of a particular problem can often fund the research towards finding solutions. I hear your frustration that there aren't proposed solutions here but I don't think that's the point of this--awareness is.
I do know some teachers who work with very high risk kids. I can imagine some of these findings presented in an appeal to get more funding for their work as they are horribly under resourced to meet the need.
In before this gets flagged /massively downvoted.
If you don’t explain your intentions it comes off as brainwashing the viewer. Because otherwise they’re just mindlessly taking in whatever you’re telling them.
So what are we supposed to take from this?
It's not clear but I think what it's signaling is a progressive ideal of taking ownership over the collective good / a rehabilitation mindset towards crime vs a punishment, based on the following that's meant to get the viewer to empathize with "failure" as an adult is due to factors beyond just personal responsibility.
> When we're young, we have so little control over their lives [...] Then we turn 18 and we're expected to be "adults" and figure things out. > > If we fail, we are punished. > > We are blamed for not going to college [...]
In case readers aren't familiar with The Pudding, they sometimes have an angle but are just as often interesting data explorations aimed at their intellectually curious audience. I don't think they need to have an agenda for every piece, although I understand the suspicion for people not familiar with their work.
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=pudding.cool
>If you don’t explain your intentions it comes off as brainwashing the viewer.
Sorry, what?
Parenting approaches vary in nature and culture. Some feature high parental involvement and long childhoods, while others have very short childhoods, or none at all.
These are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages to both strategies. In a highly stressed environment individuals who are less dependent on parental protection will be more likely to survive. The advantage of long childhoods and high parental involvement is that the individual will evolve sophisticated behaviors.
To simply assume everyone is exactly the same at birth and modified by society to an outcome is a vast simplification that requires substantial scientific justification, you cannot just assume it given the variations of parenting we see in nature.
Some of your proposals sound bigoted. Open the borders. A family is, of course, a group of people who say they are a family. It need not be permanent, they might not have been a family last week, nor will they necessarily be a family next year. It's all very fluid and progressive. We wouldn't want to discourage the idea that there can be serial divorce and remarriage, picking up new step-siblings along the way.
You can’t have higher prosperity in the bottom deciles and unlimited supply of unskilled labor at the same time. If you think you can, do please enlighten us through what mechanism that could be achieved.
What's your concrete proposal? Restrict the web to material featuring a concrete proposals? Establish concentration camps to re-educate those who would publish material lacking in concrete proposals?
(Am I missing the irony or something?)
My post contains several concrete proposals.