Comment by naasking
2 years ago
Of course they are, but putting the locus of control on external factors disempowers people. "These people didn't do as well as they could have due to poor impulse control" is a better explanation/reason than "these people have poor impulse control because of the environment in which they were raised"; the environment is not the cause of the poor outcomes, the poor impulse control is the cause, and pointing out the cause shows a path to correcting the issue.
>the environment is not the cause of the poor outcomes
It's not the proximate cause, but that doesn't mean it is in no way causative.
>and pointing out the cause shows a path to correcting the issue
Yes, it can often be most efficient to address root causes.
Yes, it's causative in the same sense that the formation of our solar system eventually caused me to write this reply.
And I agree that it's typically most efficient to address root causes, but there's a sleight of hand going on here. Note how your post correctly pointed out that environment influences a person's actions where I said poor impulse control causes poor outcomes. There are causal factors in both cases, but clearly there is a clear and direct causal link in the latter and a diffuse set of uncertain possible causes in the former.
I would not call environment a root cause in this case unless you can actually narrow down the specific source that causes poor impulse control (some of it is genetic and thus ineliminable).
>it's causative in the same sense that the formation of our solar system eventually caused me to write this reply.
More like in the sense that smoking causes cancer.