What Does It Take to Climb Up the Ladder?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
What Does It Take to Climb Up the Ladder?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/what-does-it-take-to-climb-up-the-ladder.html
86 comments
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/death-dynasties-rulers-for-ruler...
Children were investment opportunities before capitalism. Retirement, genetic success, tribal power, I'm sure I'm missing some. If you interact with powerful families, the CGP Grey video above becomes very evident - you hit talk of people referring to families rather than individuals - "the kennedys are . . . ".
Yes, it can be chilling to see someone explicitly state implicit calculations that have been done for centuries.
How many times have you seen a powerful world leader without a family or children?
Children were investment opportunities before capitalism. Retirement, genetic success, tribal power, I'm sure I'm missing some. If you interact with powerful families, the CGP Grey video above becomes very evident - you hit talk of people referring to families rather than individuals - "the kennedys are . . . ".
Yes, it can be chilling to see someone explicitly state implicit calculations that have been done for centuries.
How many times have you seen a powerful world leader without a family or children?
By "child investments", they mean investments in children, not children-as-investments.
In other words, they're suggesting that not only are children in these disadvantaged situations starting off in a worse place, but each additional dollar or hour of time spent on them gives less benefit than that same dollar or hour as a child from a more privileged background, further widening the spread between these two kids.
In other words, they're suggesting that not only are children in these disadvantaged situations starting off in a worse place, but each additional dollar or hour of time spent on them gives less benefit than that same dollar or hour as a child from a more privileged background, further widening the spread between these two kids.
The fact that you have an emotional attachment to your children is evidence of their value. Things that provide value are assets, and things that provide value over time are investments.
A common share of Google may give you financial value in return, whereas a child will give you emotional or psychological return. Technically, children should be classified as more of an investment than stock because they can go work and provide for you financially while still giving you emotional value. Stock can't really give you emotional value (other than pride).
A common share of Google may give you financial value in return, whereas a child will give you emotional or psychological return. Technically, children should be classified as more of an investment than stock because they can go work and provide for you financially while still giving you emotional value. Stock can't really give you emotional value (other than pride).
This mixing of the meaning of "value" and the small subset of the meaning labeled as "monetary value" that is crazy.
Take a thing that you consider to have "value". How much money would I have to give you to convince you to give that thing up? That's it's "monetary value".
There's an old saying: Everyone has a price. I'm not convinced it's 100% true for everyone on every topic, but in general terms, it holds quite well.
There's an old saying: Everyone has a price. I'm not convinced it's 100% true for everyone on every topic, but in general terms, it holds quite well.
Ignorance in the face of facts is truly crazy.
>Things that provide value are assets
Things.
Things.
Humans are things. What's your point?
it's not just you. we live in a very sick society and the way language is used (by "the paper of record" in this case) is a reflection of that sickness.
And people with such ideas are opinion makers. Now THAT is chilling.
A question I'm interested in that is related to this topic: what are the limits to improving conditions through education? For example, if we improve chances for everyone we might end up with thousands more aspiring brain surgeons that will never have the opportunity to pursue their dream, simply because there's a limit to the amount of brain surgeries we will ever need to perform.
Isn't improving chances for all going to create misery for those that have their prospects raised, but whose ambition exceeds their talent? I'm reminded of an essay titled The Rise of the Meritocracy in which if I recall correctly a perfect meritocracy is depicted, and one of the problems is that the unsuccessful genuinely have no one to blame but themselves for their status and are even more miserable as a result!
Isn't improving chances for all going to create misery for those that have their prospects raised, but whose ambition exceeds their talent? I'm reminded of an essay titled The Rise of the Meritocracy in which if I recall correctly a perfect meritocracy is depicted, and one of the problems is that the unsuccessful genuinely have no one to blame but themselves for their status and are even more miserable as a result!
That's what we call a high-quality problem. The more pressing challenge is how do you get low performers to the point where they could capably manage an airport Chili's. The reality is that it's difficult for people in many blue collar industries to find workers who will show up to work, take direction, etc. The book Hillbilly Elegy documents this phenomena in the Rust Belt. Not sure how big a part of the problem this is, but I've heard this story dozens of times from family who own contracting businesses, low-skill manufacturing ops, etc.
People only have trouble finding others to honestly help them when they can't honestly share the rewards of the work. Slaves will always rebel in any way possible.
It is an interesting question. Although, you do have to differentiate between learning skills and an actual education, which I take to be an improvement in critical thinking and general overall awareness.
I still think there would be interesting problems to solve, even in a perfectly educated society. I don't want to be a brain surgeon, or any surgeon, or anything really in the medical field. There is a theory that some people are "naturally inclined" to certain tasks and maybe we could realize that and have a society that allows everyone to specialize in that...
I still think there would be interesting problems to solve, even in a perfectly educated society. I don't want to be a brain surgeon, or any surgeon, or anything really in the medical field. There is a theory that some people are "naturally inclined" to certain tasks and maybe we could realize that and have a society that allows everyone to specialize in that...
The problem is that natural inclination doesn't always line up with demand.
Many people may want to be a professional beer taster, but we don't need very many of them.
Many people may want to be a professional beer taster, but we don't need very many of them.
I didn't see error bars or distribution within each category on those graphs. Are these results significant enough to indicate these traits have more then a few % points impact on upward mobility chance?
"the failure of government efforts to affect or slow down negative developments has left an opening for conservatives to argue that government interventions make things worse."
Why does the author dismiss the possibility that the argument has at least some truth to it?
For a variety of reasons, some which are due to government policy, the necessity of marriage has reduced dramatically.
That's good in many ways, such as reducing abusive situations. But it also means that people who could get married peacefully choose not to, to the detriment of their children.
Why does the author dismiss the possibility that the argument has at least some truth to it?
For a variety of reasons, some which are due to government policy, the necessity of marriage has reduced dramatically.
That's good in many ways, such as reducing abusive situations. But it also means that people who could get married peacefully choose not to, to the detriment of their children.
>Key characteristics for success: perseverance, industriousness, grit, resilience, curiosity, application, self-control, future orientation, self-discipline, impulse control, delay of gratification
Students may left to figure out successful habits on their own. I believe education could be improved by officially defining successful habits. It may sound silly to have Tony Robbins courses taught in school but something along those lines could have great benefits. As it stands today, parents are left to define successful habits and that is not happening for every child growing up.
Students may left to figure out successful habits on their own. I believe education could be improved by officially defining successful habits. It may sound silly to have Tony Robbins courses taught in school but something along those lines could have great benefits. As it stands today, parents are left to define successful habits and that is not happening for every child growing up.
To summarize if you have a family with a mother and father who make a of money you will likely make a lot of money.
Well, yes, but that doesn't answer why.
I would suggest that some portion of intelligence has a hereditary factor, and (outside entertainment and professional sports) intelligence has a correlation with income levels.
I would suggest that some portion of intelligence has a hereditary factor, and (outside entertainment and professional sports) intelligence has a correlation with income levels.
Cultural capital is a thing as well, one of the big reasons rich people's kids get more successful is because they know people / they know how to behave with other rich people.
That is a thing, certainly. If you chose two kids with identical IQs/personalities, the child with wealthier parents would have an easier time.
Maybe it has more to do with having good parents in a stable relationship than the money.
Is this measuring a causal relationship though? Correlation is not causation...
Maybe those kids from more wealthy/well-educated families are more persistent and tempered because their self-image aligns with society's looming popular image of what people /should/ be: wealthy, polymath millionaires.
Maybe those kids from more wealthy/well-educated families are more persistent and tempered because their self-image aligns with society's looming popular image of what people /should/ be: wealthy, polymath millionaires.
This article is not a standard "character drives prosperity" piece. Did you read it? If so, I am missong your point.
Well the stats aren't talking at all about success but about persistance and self control
> For college graduates, they argue, “marriage has become the commitment device that supports intensive joint investments in children,” a cooperative “joint project of raising economically successful children.”
This is a great article but this point kind of made me chuckle. "Has become?" It's always been that.
This is a great article but this point kind of made me chuckle. "Has become?" It's always been that.
It's really not a bad point. As one of those college graduates, having children is probably the only reason I'd get married.
Marriage has been and is many other things, too. It's has been a tool women have used to escape their parent's house. It's been used to build social ties among disparate groups, as well as maintain social ties within tight knit communities. It's been a union of two humans in the eyes of God. It's been a tool for subjugating women, and social control.
College graduates are getting married less, and later. The point of that sentence, I think, is that the values driving the decision to get married have shifted, and are somewhat stratified by socioeconomic status.
Marriage has been and is many other things, too. It's has been a tool women have used to escape their parent's house. It's been used to build social ties among disparate groups, as well as maintain social ties within tight knit communities. It's been a union of two humans in the eyes of God. It's been a tool for subjugating women, and social control.
College graduates are getting married less, and later. The point of that sentence, I think, is that the values driving the decision to get married have shifted, and are somewhat stratified by socioeconomic status.
In the eyes of theists it is the union of two humans in the eyes of God. I think in 2017 it's time we start calling this fairy-tale bullshit out instead of stating it as fact.
I don't think being a theist means you believe in religious ceremonies necessarily. Also, the comment you replied to made pretty clear that marriage is many things to different people.
In any event, in 2017 and 5000 you'll be able to spend your life arguing what a fact is. I'm an atheist, but I'm totally OK with that comment. People should relax across the theological board...
In any event, in 2017 and 5000 you'll be able to spend your life arguing what a fact is. I'm an atheist, but I'm totally OK with that comment. People should relax across the theological board...
Yeah! The comment is taking an anthropological perspective - marriage is a complex institution with huge differences between cultures, and a simplistic description "evolutionarily/economically beneficial strategy for pooling of resources for child rearing" lacks a lot of explanatory power. What about gay people? etc
this is a level of vitriol and hostility that gets people like Trump elected.
I don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian God either, but I don't feel compelled to make nasty remarks about it in public. Other people have different beliefs than you. Judge them on their behavior, not their beliefs.
I don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian God either, but I don't feel compelled to make nasty remarks about it in public. Other people have different beliefs than you. Judge them on their behavior, not their beliefs.
You can tell someone they are being a jerk without blaming Trump on them.
Now it seems like the auto response to someone saying something distasteful and liberal is to say "you, saying stuff like this that I don't like, that's why Trump got elected" and intended or not it's an implicit threat -- don't say things I don't like or else we'll get another Trump.
People being rude on the Internet is NOT why Trump won the election and believing so, and letting people hold you and what you say hostage with the threat "I might vote for Trump again if you e.g. defend feminism too rigorously and loudly, watch it liberal" isn't sustainable or acceptable.
But you're right the comment you're referring to was very rude and unacceptable, my response is intended towards this sort of response /in general/.
Now it seems like the auto response to someone saying something distasteful and liberal is to say "you, saying stuff like this that I don't like, that's why Trump got elected" and intended or not it's an implicit threat -- don't say things I don't like or else we'll get another Trump.
People being rude on the Internet is NOT why Trump won the election and believing so, and letting people hold you and what you say hostage with the threat "I might vote for Trump again if you e.g. defend feminism too rigorously and loudly, watch it liberal" isn't sustainable or acceptable.
But you're right the comment you're referring to was very rude and unacceptable, my response is intended towards this sort of response /in general/.
I was using hyperbole to make a point. The point is that backlash is a real thing, and one of the causes of backlash (particularly right-wing backlash) is feeling like you are hated for your beliefs.
The thing is, @feld never said anything hateful about @roflc0ptic or anyone else.
There's a difference between between not respecting a person's beliefs, and not respecting a person because of their beliefs. It is possible to engage in the former while not engaging in the latter.
This breaks down, though, when people somehow equate what they believe with who they are, and thus if you attack their beliefs in any manner, somehow you are now attacking them. This isn't confined to any particular belief system or ideology (you see it in liberals as well). One should, however, be on guard to not let this kind of conflation happen to themselves, because it does nothing to further discussion or reflection upon the ideas/beliefs, and their likely veracity or usefulness to themselves and/or society at large.
Unfortunately, many people lack this kind of ability to self-reflect and understand that they are not being attacked or derided, but rather their ideas and beliefs are. There are very few cases in which an individual should not be respected because of their beliefs; these cases are typically when society has deemed such ideas/beliefs to be harmful or dangerous to society or others, yet they continue to hold onto those ideas/beliefs and/or promote them as well.
Otherwise, except for those cases, one should feel free to criticize, attack, or disrespect beliefs apart from the individual holding them, and that person should also understand that they are not the target of such - and should self-reflect upon why their beliefs are being viewed this way.
Of course - this can lead to absurdities - for instance, if all of a society deemed that hitting oneself in the head with a hammer was the way to cure a headache, despite objective evidence - to go against this idea while being in the minority can and would be extremely maddening and depressing.
One can thus understand why being an atheist in a country that is mostly religious, has almost no representation within their country's government, while being told that they are part of the problems of that country, that they are the immoral ones (despite what statistics really show about crime and incarceration demographically), and that the religious ones (and mainly of a particular religion) are the ones being suppressed (again, never mind the real objective facts of the matter) - can be an almost Kafka-esque experience...
There's a difference between between not respecting a person's beliefs, and not respecting a person because of their beliefs. It is possible to engage in the former while not engaging in the latter.
This breaks down, though, when people somehow equate what they believe with who they are, and thus if you attack their beliefs in any manner, somehow you are now attacking them. This isn't confined to any particular belief system or ideology (you see it in liberals as well). One should, however, be on guard to not let this kind of conflation happen to themselves, because it does nothing to further discussion or reflection upon the ideas/beliefs, and their likely veracity or usefulness to themselves and/or society at large.
Unfortunately, many people lack this kind of ability to self-reflect and understand that they are not being attacked or derided, but rather their ideas and beliefs are. There are very few cases in which an individual should not be respected because of their beliefs; these cases are typically when society has deemed such ideas/beliefs to be harmful or dangerous to society or others, yet they continue to hold onto those ideas/beliefs and/or promote them as well.
Otherwise, except for those cases, one should feel free to criticize, attack, or disrespect beliefs apart from the individual holding them, and that person should also understand that they are not the target of such - and should self-reflect upon why their beliefs are being viewed this way.
Of course - this can lead to absurdities - for instance, if all of a society deemed that hitting oneself in the head with a hammer was the way to cure a headache, despite objective evidence - to go against this idea while being in the minority can and would be extremely maddening and depressing.
One can thus understand why being an atheist in a country that is mostly religious, has almost no representation within their country's government, while being told that they are part of the problems of that country, that they are the immoral ones (despite what statistics really show about crime and incarceration demographically), and that the religious ones (and mainly of a particular religion) are the ones being suppressed (again, never mind the real objective facts of the matter) - can be an almost Kafka-esque experience...
I understand what you're saying but I disagree that it is reasonable, despite sounding reasonable. I think you have one serious flawed assumption, which is that it is possible to disidentify from your beliefs.
There is no separation here, and particularly not in the case of religious beliefs.
The type of belief a person can disidentify with, and evaluate objectively without emotional response, is basically a very narrow subset of beliefs that are limited to things that are 1) empirically falsifiable and 2) not fettered with excessive social attachments.
almost no beliefs meet both of those criteria. the vast majority of people's beliefs, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, are core to identity and must be treated as such during discourse if we have any expectation of getting good political and social outcomes.
I realize this is very disappointing to people who live a very rationalist, atheist, materialist world. The standards of discourse in that world are extremely different than in the world of religious belief. There is a huge difference between ecumenicism and rational debate. It's even more painful in that the irrational behaviors of some religious groups result in a lot of nastiness directed at non-believers. I don't like that either. It's not ok. However, the solution to it is not to be nasty back to them (or pre-emptively nasty to them). That only makes the already bad situation worse.
I'm a political realist. I don't like that intolerant religious fanatics have as much influence as they do, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. I try to behave appropriately given the world we live in. Save myself and my loved ones a lot of grief while focusing on actions that can actually make a difference, and in particular not making things worse by provoking a group of people that is in a position to hurt you.
There is no separation here, and particularly not in the case of religious beliefs.
The type of belief a person can disidentify with, and evaluate objectively without emotional response, is basically a very narrow subset of beliefs that are limited to things that are 1) empirically falsifiable and 2) not fettered with excessive social attachments.
almost no beliefs meet both of those criteria. the vast majority of people's beliefs, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, are core to identity and must be treated as such during discourse if we have any expectation of getting good political and social outcomes.
I realize this is very disappointing to people who live a very rationalist, atheist, materialist world. The standards of discourse in that world are extremely different than in the world of religious belief. There is a huge difference between ecumenicism and rational debate. It's even more painful in that the irrational behaviors of some religious groups result in a lot of nastiness directed at non-believers. I don't like that either. It's not ok. However, the solution to it is not to be nasty back to them (or pre-emptively nasty to them). That only makes the already bad situation worse.
I'm a political realist. I don't like that intolerant religious fanatics have as much influence as they do, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. I try to behave appropriately given the world we live in. Save myself and my loved ones a lot of grief while focusing on actions that can actually make a difference, and in particular not making things worse by provoking a group of people that is in a position to hurt you.
I got married while in college, and generally recommend it.
For one thing, it made sense financially because the gov't stopped counting my parent's money (that I couldn't touch) when determining how much aid I received.
It was also nice just to have someone to help me out with things (eating decently, remembering to print homework, etc.)
And, of course, the usual benefits of being married...
For one thing, it made sense financially because the gov't stopped counting my parent's money (that I couldn't touch) when determining how much aid I received.
It was also nice just to have someone to help me out with things (eating decently, remembering to print homework, etc.)
And, of course, the usual benefits of being married...
> For one thing, it made sense financially because the gov't stopped counting my parent's money (that I couldn't touch) when determining how much aid I received.
Can confirm. If my (now) wife and I'd gotten married freshman year instead of waiting until junior year we'd have saved a hell of a lot of money.
> It was also nice just to have someone to help me out with things (eating decently, remembering to print homework, etc.)
Works both ways. One person's ice-cream craving easily becomes both people eating ice cream, to pick an example. Or "I'm in a hurry and hitting Arby's, do you want me to bring you something?". Well, I didn't, but now I guess I do.
Much easier to eat healthy solo unless you marry someone with significantly healthier eating habits than yours, IMO. Even if they're just similar to yours there's a good chance you'll end up eating more junk for the above reason. And such habits can drift over the years.
Can confirm. If my (now) wife and I'd gotten married freshman year instead of waiting until junior year we'd have saved a hell of a lot of money.
> It was also nice just to have someone to help me out with things (eating decently, remembering to print homework, etc.)
Works both ways. One person's ice-cream craving easily becomes both people eating ice cream, to pick an example. Or "I'm in a hurry and hitting Arby's, do you want me to bring you something?". Well, I didn't, but now I guess I do.
Much easier to eat healthy solo unless you marry someone with significantly healthier eating habits than yours, IMO. Even if they're just similar to yours there's a good chance you'll end up eating more junk for the above reason. And such habits can drift over the years.
Maybe HN readers are preternaturally mature for their ages, but marrying young for material benefits has a pretty bad track record in the military, where young soldiers do it in order to live off post.
Well, marrying young for material benefits and being in love. I have no problem with gaming the system for benefits, because marriage is unfortunately tied to so many benefits.
Was engaged during college, didn't realize what a difference it would've made, had I did I would've pushed harder to go through the actual ceremony.
Marriage could be considered a serious life hack.
Marriage could be considered a serious life hack.
> Marriage could be considered a serious life hack.
I think it is, by some. One of the things I learned in college economics was that, statistically speaking, the single most certain way to avoid poverty is get married.
I think it is, by some. One of the things I learned in college economics was that, statistically speaking, the single most certain way to avoid poverty is get married.
Parenting is now much more involved then it used to be. You can not tell your seven years old to go play alone outside. You don't just have four-five years old playing whole day, they have to have enriching activities up to teaching them letters etc.
In the past, you would marry for many different reasons that had nothing to do with children - including simply social pressure or wish to be more independent from parents.
In the past, you would marry for many different reasons that had nothing to do with children - including simply social pressure or wish to be more independent from parents.
Parenting is no more involved than it used to be. Among certain demographics, the social expectations surrounding parenting are more involved than they used to be. But those are optional.
Neither my wife or I did any enriching activities as kids. We ran around outside and played with sticks, or sat around and read. Teach your kids to read as quickly as you can, because then they can entertain themselves and leave you alone.
Neither my wife or I did any enriching activities as kids. We ran around outside and played with sticks, or sat around and read. Teach your kids to read as quickly as you can, because then they can entertain themselves and leave you alone.
> Teach your kids to read as quickly as you can, because then they can entertain themselves and leave you alone.
Not just this, but educate themselves too. Best Child-Hack you can do is teach them to love reading.
Not just this, but educate themselves too. Best Child-Hack you can do is teach them to love reading.
Also, I know in a lot of rural communities to this day, children are part of the family labor force at a young age. They're not idle input experiments, if it can be helped. They're out in the field or in the barn too.
Having sex was also a major reason. Socially acceptable pre and extra marital sex is still a newish thing in our societies.
Not too long ago people had children because they needed people to help work the farm.
I too found these statements entertaining - it makes the process of raising a child seem utilitarian for the family and society (which is a valid / interesting perspective).
I'm going to go off on a tangent here, and will happily accept downvotes, but I feel like venting for a bit.
I love the NYT. Years ago, when I got into it, I was blown away by Krugman, Kristof, Friedman (yes), and even David Brooks. They sounded sensible, nuanced, and intelligent.
A lof of that hasn't changed (except perhaps my opinion of Friedman!), but NYT's comment section is a cesspool. I'm as liberal as they come, but every NYT comment section is effectively blaming the right-wing regardless of the context of the article. When Brooks talks about values for example, or "social fabric", I think he does a good job of being reasonable, and if the article were from "anon" vs. Brooks, people would say "Yeah, sounds about right." Instead, all we get are "David, your party caused this, blah blah blah".
Even in this article, there is a lot of data and lots of food for thought. And yet, the top comment starts out: "Is the problem "single mothers" or is it the right-wingers who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality?"
It's as if you only care about establishing what side the author belongs too, argument be damned.
I love the NYT. Years ago, when I got into it, I was blown away by Krugman, Kristof, Friedman (yes), and even David Brooks. They sounded sensible, nuanced, and intelligent.
A lof of that hasn't changed (except perhaps my opinion of Friedman!), but NYT's comment section is a cesspool. I'm as liberal as they come, but every NYT comment section is effectively blaming the right-wing regardless of the context of the article. When Brooks talks about values for example, or "social fabric", I think he does a good job of being reasonable, and if the article were from "anon" vs. Brooks, people would say "Yeah, sounds about right." Instead, all we get are "David, your party caused this, blah blah blah".
Even in this article, there is a lot of data and lots of food for thought. And yet, the top comment starts out: "Is the problem "single mothers" or is it the right-wingers who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality?"
It's as if you only care about establishing what side the author belongs too, argument be damned.
This is the web today. I stopped reading comments on most articles long ago because it's always like you described. This does nobody any good. Actually, it does politicians good to keep us separated down the middle. We are at our weakest in this position.
I knew this reminded me something, it's Chomsky (I had to google it):
'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.'
'The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.'
Oh, wow, yes. A very apt quote.
Not helping that modern marketing has taken to game such comment sections (never mind the wider social media field) on behalf of their paymasters.
In a sense the net, first seen as flattening the classes, have instead empowered the elite to make both Stasi and Bernays look like bungling idiots.
Rather than crude manual policing etc, computers can both monitor all activity online (and offline, thanks to the likes of smartphones) and insert data to affect opinions and future activity.
In a sense the net, first seen as flattening the classes, have instead empowered the elite to make both Stasi and Bernays look like bungling idiots.
Rather than crude manual policing etc, computers can both monitor all activity online (and offline, thanks to the likes of smartphones) and insert data to affect opinions and future activity.
I don't think though that othering policitians as "them" and identifying "the people" as an "us" helps us handle the complexity of social and political discourse either...
Then how do we get the politicians to stop thinking in terms of "there's us" and then "there's the people"?
edit for clarification.
edit for clarification.
I won't comment on your endorsements of NYTimes opinion writers (I have a very low opinion of all of them, ESPECIALLY Friedman), but I will comment on the trend you're noticing.
I've noticed it too and it affects all layers of the paper, not just the opinion pages. The news reporting has become much worse as well. Distorted, biased, propagandized. Dubious sources. Anonymous political operatives leaking rumors to the NYTimes for pure gamesmanship in their ongoing partisan (and internecine) warfare. The NYTimes has become a pawn in a geopolitical and national power game being played by factions that have very little accountability and no transparency.
On top of this the Times has really raced to the bottom to get more eyeballs on ads. They have succumbed to market pressure to cater to their audience's biases and preferences. They are optimizing for FB shares and retweets just like everyone else in the business. This is destroying our society. The Times will not be judged kindly by history.
I call this the "Fox News-ification" of American society. Fox started it and it worked for them so now everyone is doing it. We're suffering the consequences of it.
I've noticed it too and it affects all layers of the paper, not just the opinion pages. The news reporting has become much worse as well. Distorted, biased, propagandized. Dubious sources. Anonymous political operatives leaking rumors to the NYTimes for pure gamesmanship in their ongoing partisan (and internecine) warfare. The NYTimes has become a pawn in a geopolitical and national power game being played by factions that have very little accountability and no transparency.
On top of this the Times has really raced to the bottom to get more eyeballs on ads. They have succumbed to market pressure to cater to their audience's biases and preferences. They are optimizing for FB shares and retweets just like everyone else in the business. This is destroying our society. The Times will not be judged kindly by history.
I call this the "Fox News-ification" of American society. Fox started it and it worked for them so now everyone is doing it. We're suffering the consequences of it.
[deleted]
That comment seems to be aimed at the argument, not where the author stands (from this piece, it seems like the author stands on the Left). I don't think it's an unfair question to ask - how much of what we're seeing is the result of personal traits, and how much of it is the result of choices that a society makes?
Since the author seems to be advocating efforts to change personal traits (rather than societal systems) as the main focus of combating inequality, I think the types of question the questioner is asking are extremely important (even if the question itself is rather blunt).
Since the author seems to be advocating efforts to change personal traits (rather than societal systems) as the main focus of combating inequality, I think the types of question the questioner is asking are extremely important (even if the question itself is rather blunt).
The problem being that as soon as you start bringing the left/right dichotomy into the picture, you've lost all hope of having a sensible argument or even an intelligent discussion.
I mean, it's not like it's all that difficult to rephrase the question in a way to be less thought-terminating (and this is literally one substitution, you can imagine even more eloquent ways of phrasing it):
> "Is the problem "single mothers" or is it the people who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality?"
I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely "virtue signaling" as another poster noted. An easy way to vent frustration, maybe. But it's not a question that asks for sensible discussion. It's a "when did you stop hitting your wife?" type of question - one that insults the very people you really want to answer the question. How do you expect to have a reasonable discussion like that?
I mean, it's not like it's all that difficult to rephrase the question in a way to be less thought-terminating (and this is literally one substitution, you can imagine even more eloquent ways of phrasing it):
> "Is the problem "single mothers" or is it the people who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality?"
I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely "virtue signaling" as another poster noted. An easy way to vent frustration, maybe. But it's not a question that asks for sensible discussion. It's a "when did you stop hitting your wife?" type of question - one that insults the very people you really want to answer the question. How do you expect to have a reasonable discussion like that?
Sure. It's a question of how much self-censorship you want to impose on yourself in the hope of fostering a good discussion. And how much you are focusing on expressing what you feel vs. starting a conversation with people you disagree with. Different people will make different choices, even in this discussion. For instance, I could rewrite your comment:
> I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely "virtue signaling" as another poster noted. An easy way to vent frustration, maybe. But it's not a question that asks for sensible discussion. It's a "when did you stop hitting your wife?" type of question - one that insults the very people you really want to answer the question. How do you expect to have a reasonable discussion like that?
As something like:
> This type of comment probably isn't the type that would best encourage an open debate with someone on the Right. My personal suggestion would be something that addresses individual policies and avoids a monolithic view of one side of the political spectrum.
It would be more diplomatic, sure. But is that closer to what you really wanted to express? Maybe not.
> I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely "virtue signaling" as another poster noted. An easy way to vent frustration, maybe. But it's not a question that asks for sensible discussion. It's a "when did you stop hitting your wife?" type of question - one that insults the very people you really want to answer the question. How do you expect to have a reasonable discussion like that?
As something like:
> This type of comment probably isn't the type that would best encourage an open debate with someone on the Right. My personal suggestion would be something that addresses individual policies and avoids a monolithic view of one side of the political spectrum.
It would be more diplomatic, sure. But is that closer to what you really wanted to express? Maybe not.
> It's a question of how much self-censorship you want to impose on yourself in the hope of fostering a good discussion. And how much you are focusing on expressing what you feel vs. starting a conversation with people you disagree with.
Sure, and that's my point: Are you just venting? Fine. You're making a choice to vent your frustrations and not hoping to actually have a discussion. You're making yourself feel better. There's nothing wrong with that, either. We all vent in different ways.
It's just unfortunate that many people choose to make internet comments the location of their venting. Worse, this becomes the sort of discourse that we come to expect from any sort of public internet forum. We don't expect reasonable discussion: We expect angry people yelling about the other team and how their team is the best team. It's become a stadium full of drunk fans.
> It would be more diplomatic, sure.
Eh, not really: I never mentioned left/right in that chunk of text on purpose (because I think both "teams" do it). So your rewrite is actually significantly less diplomatic because it singles out one group of people who previously were part of a larger group.
Might seem annoying of me to call you out on this (and I fully understand why you assumed that given the context of our discussion), but I think it's an important correction nonetheless.
Sure, and that's my point: Are you just venting? Fine. You're making a choice to vent your frustrations and not hoping to actually have a discussion. You're making yourself feel better. There's nothing wrong with that, either. We all vent in different ways.
It's just unfortunate that many people choose to make internet comments the location of their venting. Worse, this becomes the sort of discourse that we come to expect from any sort of public internet forum. We don't expect reasonable discussion: We expect angry people yelling about the other team and how their team is the best team. It's become a stadium full of drunk fans.
> It would be more diplomatic, sure.
Eh, not really: I never mentioned left/right in that chunk of text on purpose (because I think both "teams" do it). So your rewrite is actually significantly less diplomatic because it singles out one group of people who previously were part of a larger group.
Might seem annoying of me to call you out on this (and I fully understand why you assumed that given the context of our discussion), but I think it's an important correction nonetheless.
> Eh, not really: I never mentioned left/right in that chunk of text on purpose (because I think both "teams" do it). So your rewrite is actually significantly less diplomatic because it singles out one group of people who previously were part of a larger group.
You were directing your remarks at the writer of the comment and those that write similar comments. Not everything is a Left/Right divide.
I'm not sure where you find issue with the comment "This type of comment probably isn't the type that would best encourage an open debate with someone on the Right" since you're saying that making the comment about the Right shuts down discussion and that you would remove it. I think it's more diplomatic to comment to make about the author than saying something like "I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely 'virtue signaling' as another poster noted."
But perhaps that brings about another point - different people have different opinions about what kind of discourse is more diplomatic and which is less. I think my revised version of your comment is obviously more diplomatic; you disagree. You think your revised version of the NY Times comment is obviously more diplomatic; it's quite possible that the author would disagree.
You were directing your remarks at the writer of the comment and those that write similar comments. Not everything is a Left/Right divide.
I'm not sure where you find issue with the comment "This type of comment probably isn't the type that would best encourage an open debate with someone on the Right" since you're saying that making the comment about the Right shuts down discussion and that you would remove it. I think it's more diplomatic to comment to make about the author than saying something like "I want to believe that most people KNOW this, and it's merely 'virtue signaling' as another poster noted."
But perhaps that brings about another point - different people have different opinions about what kind of discourse is more diplomatic and which is less. I think my revised version of your comment is obviously more diplomatic; you disagree. You think your revised version of the NY Times comment is obviously more diplomatic; it's quite possible that the author would disagree.
Regarding Brooks, I've read him quite a bit as well. At this point it has become a source of entertainment to me to find out with each article how he will manage to take a factual premise and reasonable arguments to arrive at a nonsequitur conservative platitude. Around 3/4 of the way through the column he consistently takes a turn from reason, apparently hoping we won't notice that his conclusion does not follow from the rest of the article. I used to do the same on my homework when I didn't understand the material.
If you aren't reading the articles to the end (not to suggest that you personally aren't) it would be easy to feel the commentators are unfairly jumping on him. But I think they have also observed the same pattern and feel that he is playing a softly-spoken rearguard for odious views and policies.
If you aren't reading the articles to the end (not to suggest that you personally aren't) it would be easy to feel the commentators are unfairly jumping on him. But I think they have also observed the same pattern and feel that he is playing a softly-spoken rearguard for odious views and policies.
If its any consolation I'm conservative for the most part and feel the same way. Why does it seem that nobody ever considers that it is unlikely complex problems have a singular specific root cause? Its never a little out of column A and a little out of column B in their minds. Corruption absolutely exists and children from two parent households do better statistically speaking. Why does one preclude the other?
The good news is that there are sensible people on both sides who recognize that most problems are complex. We can be voices of reason within our tribes rather than joining in the two-minutes hate and blaming the other side for everything under the sun.
I would happily vote for any politician, party be damned, who talked about the importance of listening to multiple perspectives, compromising and not simply wielding a narrow majority like a club against the losers.
I would happily vote for any politician, party be damned, who talked about the importance of listening to multiple perspectives, compromising and not simply wielding a narrow majority like a club against the losers.
This has a lot to do with how "cause" transitions into "blame" and then "carrot/stick" systems that end up being only the stick.
Historically speaking the prejudice against single parent families and single mothers has been punitive to the point of some extremely dark places: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/cathol...
So a lot of "jumping the gun" goes on: as soon as it looks like the discussion might be heading in the direction of criticising single parents, get your retaliation in first.
Historically speaking the prejudice against single parent families and single mothers has been punitive to the point of some extremely dark places: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/07/cathol...
So a lot of "jumping the gun" goes on: as soon as it looks like the discussion might be heading in the direction of criticising single parents, get your retaliation in first.
This. 100% this. One of the major reasons I enjoy reading HN is for the comments. I find that comments here are much more insightful, and more importantly, much more respectful, than you find elsewhere on the web. I suppose HN comments still lean to the left but I find it much more tolerable when everything is not painted in a political light.
HN would be just like Reddit or even NYT without the fantastic moderation keeping everyone in line. It's not easy maintaining a positive culture in an online community, even in places like this.
[deleted]
Thomas Friedman and David Brooks have been dangerous idiots and tools of the most regressive forces in society since they started writing. They have none of the attributes you've ascribed to them and never have.
They've advocated for war and economic oppression, for a living, for decades.
To answer your question, yes, the the problem is, in fact, people (right wingers and otherwise) who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality.
They've advocated for war and economic oppression, for a living, for decades.
To answer your question, yes, the the problem is, in fact, people (right wingers and otherwise) who conspire to create, perpetuate, and steadily increase economic inequality.
thank you for saying this. I wish you hadn't been down-voted.
Wow! I didn't think I'd see a reply that does the exact thing the parent talked about. It's like a meta-meta-comment.
On the other hand, it has the distinct advantage of being the truth, rather than propaganda.
Indeed. Seems like a reasonable defense to me.
Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), Narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), Psychopathy (lack of remorse and empathy), Sadism (pleasure in suffering of others) in REAL World
Two feet and the desire to climb it.
>the desire to climb it
Isn't the article implying that even the very desire and will to climb it are significantly influenced by upbringing, income, etc?
So even if two feet and the desire were all you really needed, you'd still be at a disadvantage compared to people in different income brackets and more stable family status.
Isn't the article implying that even the very desire and will to climb it are significantly influenced by upbringing, income, etc?
So even if two feet and the desire were all you really needed, you'd still be at a disadvantage compared to people in different income brackets and more stable family status.
Taking one's hands out of one's pockets.
> the expected returns to child investments by parents with > limited resources and uncertain futures may be lower than > for more educated parents with greater and more secure > investment capabilities.
Sure we live in a capitalist society, but treating my sons like an "investment opportunity" looks crazy.