|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:lbj never ran, so he never lost LBJ ran against basically Hitler clone Barry Goldwater (lol Hillary campaigned for him) in what was essentially a referendum on Civil Rights, and he won in the largest landslide in history (to that point). Then LBJ got caught up in Vietnam, a war he believed was important, and when the next election cycle came round he was a beaten bitter man worn down by popular opposition and who no longer cared to run for the Presidency. Also he probably had sad brains.
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
Lindsey O. Graham posted:he definitely had sad brains, but he definitely also said that the democratic party lost the racist vote when he signed the civil rights act into law Yeah. LBJ's one election was a Civil Rights referendum. He never had a Great Society referendum because Vietnam overshadowed everything else and he refused to run again. LBJ is the classic example of great domestic policy, bad foreign policy. Although I have a soft spot for LBJ because despite Vietnam being a colossal gently caress up, he believed in the necessity of the war in a way I don't think any other President did for their respective foreign policy gently caress ups. It doesn't make it suddenly right or good, but it humanizes LBJ in a way that, for example, the Iraq 2 doesn't GWB, no matter how much he paints.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
This is why early childhood intervention is so incredibly important, and also why poverty tends to be a generational issue. Aside from the permanent brain changes and maladaptive decision making caused by growing up with extreme stress poor kids tend to have enormous word gaps and delayed development. That hampers those kids from succeeding later in life. Rinse repeat when they have kids. Its also why policy aimed at increasing economic stability is so incredibly important, and why the woke lords insisting they can hold out for a perfect solution that is tailored to them are so incredibly loving dumb. Kids can't get their childhood back. Undoing the damage later in life is vastly more difficult and costly. E: There were people on this very forum genuinely arguing that economic justice policies that helped white people at all should be rejected because they supported white supremacy. Like, how do you respond to that in a rational manner? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Agag posted:Pseudoscience like this is also a problem. The economic and social station of the poor is consistent with their biological and psychological inferiority. "Science" says that they are where they belong, just as surely as God or the Karmic wheel would put them in their proper place. We should cut our losses but perhaps, with sufficient intervention, there is hope for the next generation? Barring genetic and gestational gently caress ups all baby brains are basically the same and have the same potential. Environment is the real shaping force, and we can and should do something about it. Science says that they arent poor because they have short term focused decision making, but that they have short term focused decision making because they are poor. We can fix poor. And I'm not saying the adults are a lost cause, but I am saying it is a whole lot cheaper and easier to make sure kids don't get screwed by their environment. Also, psuedoscience? Why would you think the stress associated with poverty wouldn't have a lasting physiological impact? Do you also think people with depression should just get over it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Hahahaha this is pretty much the most liberal thing ever. Liberals get wet to the idea of fixing poverty with ~elegant~ solutions involving science/technology that don't actually require any significant material sacrifice on the part of the wealthy. Their mindset is more or less "I genuinely want to fix poverty, but we should hold off on things like significant tax increases because maybe there's a better more elegant solution!" It's basically a rationalization to paper over what is essentially a selfish fear of losing their current privileged status. My wife has a PhD in Cognitive Science and works with another non-profit doing similar programs. The goal is to do more with less, because nobody is funding full scale interventions and the nobody in government really seems interested in doing anything to address economic justice and equality (except Bernie, PBUH). So finding relatively cheap ways to help bridge the gap for low income kids is the best they can do. The researchers aren't sitting on a lever that says FULL COMMUNISM NOW but don't want to pull it because it would inconvenience them. They're trying to find ways to have maximum impact with the resources they have at hand. Simple poo poo like helping parents feel more confident with their kids and encouraging early literacy pays huge dividends and is a relatively cheap program to implement. Bash government all you want, because those people can help and choose not to because they don't give a poo poo. Don't bash the researchers doing their damnedest to turn scarce resources into some kind of improvement in quality of life. E: Also bash journalists for coming to extremely dumb conclusions if you want Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't think anyone is bashing the researchers, nor the programs that can presumably help the poor. Ok, the article is bad, but the science is good. Executive function and planning horizons are real things that poverty has a real affect on. The programs are trying their best with the funds available to assist both parent and child. The people actually doing the research and working with these programs don't give a poo poo about shifting blame or societal responsibilities, they want to help actual real people in actual real poverty. At some point the rubber has to hit the road and the idealism and philosophy has to be put aside for real humans. Like, this is not some abstract game for my wife or for me. Her organization has the social workers share stories at monthly meetings to constantly humanize their work. Those families want whats best for their kids and understand that growing up in poverty is rough, and they want any advice or goods they can get to make sure their kids have better lives than they had. Its the most universal and human impulse there is. So I can understand wanting to poo poo on some dipshit at the Atlantic who thinks cognitive therapy is a substitute for substantive economic justice, but don't poo poo on the entire field and mission because you think its just a blame shifting game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
Alpha Mayo posted:It is seriously stupid to take a top-down approach. The article basically describes what we've known about poverty for years (such as Maslow's hierarchy of needs). Poorbrains have poorbrains because they are in a daily stuggle for basic needs. It isn't their brain's way of thinking that needs fixed, the brain is actually the one thing going for them that makes sure they aren't starving to death, it is security of their needs that needs fixed. Obviously the best solution is to relieve economic hardship so that 'poorbrains' don't need to struggle for basic needs (although even then assistance transitioning to long term planning would *still* be valuable). But given that the organizations involved here don't have secret FULL COMMUNISM NOW levers the best they can do is manage a lovely situation and try to take some of the sting out of poverty as best they can. They are trying to come up with the way to have the highest impact for the most people with not a lot of money or influence. Cognitive therapy and better plans for social workers are relatively cheap interventions that can pay huge dividends. If these organizations had the money to provide real security to people they would, but they don't, so they're doing what they can with what they have. Don't attack people for trying. Attack people for not trying. Attack people for thinking that because low cost methods developed out of desperation exist thats good enough and poverty is solved forever. Attack people who turn their nose up at triage because it doesn't fix everything. But never attack people who are actually trying. Again, if everyone is making fun of some dipshit journalist for touting a lesson plan as the silver bullet for poverty thats cool. gently caress that guy. But if you're mad that people are trying to address the very real maladaptive decision making born out of poverty to try and alleviate poverty and suffering, then gently caress you. I'm touchy about this because it's personal, and I know from experience that no one else gives a gently caress and the state would gladly ignore the poor entirely if they could.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I'm not making GBS threads on the research dude, I'm just averse to medicalizing/pathologizing what's a social condition. I'm sure this will help people deal with problems, but it's treating a symptom. I'm doubtful such measures are actually going to make people 'escape' poverty, but perhaps make it more livable/survivable. Its a social condition that leads to systemic physiological changes though. You wouldn't tell someone with depression from living in poverty that it was actually a social condition and therefore SSRIs and CBT are really just treating a symptom. I don't know why people are so consistently weird about mental health not being a real thing. E: Maybe people are having difficulty with the relationship between cause and effect? Poverty *causes* 'poorbrain'. 'Poorbrain' does *not* cause poverty. Treating 'poorbrain' as a symptom of poverty is absolutely a thing that should be done, much like you treat the symptoms of any illness to bring relief to the patient WHILE you ALSO treat the illness itself. Nonprofits can't really do much about systemic poverty though, its not really their scope, no matter how much the Republicans might say otherwise. Thats a government job. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:once these guys finish making people able to survive worse and worse poverty, the problem of poverty will be considered solved. so no, they shouldn't be thanked for working hard to make poor people better able to receive abuse You're being incredibly dumb. These people have absolutely no power to make poor people be not poor, but they can help make being poor suck slightly less.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and they're only being allowed to do that cause it allows the rich to abuse the poor even more Patient: I have cancer and it hurts to just be alive. Doctor: I can't cure you, but I can help you not be in crippling pain all the time Condiv, loading a shotgun: No, it will only prolong the suffering
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Guys, take a step back. Framing *is* super important. I see important research and social programs that can be applied to help relieve or at least ameliorate some of the symptoms of poverty and materially improve lives, especially by helping children build resiliency and bridge the word gap. Its very attractive because it potentially offers a lot of impact for a relatively low investment, which is great because anti-poverty nonprofits aren't exactly rolling in cash. Others see a way to cop out of addressing systemic economic inequality by claiming poverty really isn't so bad and can be 'solved' through science voodoo. I really, really, really hate that kind of person, almost as much as I hate the people who believe that if we can't fix everything we should instead fix nothing. And apparently Condiv sees 'Hail Satan' printed a thousand times.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They could make recommendations for an equitable distribution of incomes, but I think the grant money will start drying up. You could also do your civic duty and take up arms to bring the capitalist to their knees Comrade. The Revolution is waiting on you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why do you hate that person? are they wrong that such research would be very tempting to use that way in today's political climate? I sometimes forget that unironic accelerationism is a thing. Well. Best of luck I guess. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Alpha Mayo posted:I'm not denying this research could be useful in a "life after poverty" scenario, but am very skeptical it can do any good for people living in poverty. It isn't pathologically wrong to only being concerned about your immediate survival when that is what is at stake. Non profits can't make that promise because they arent a government. This should be obvious, but I guess it isnt?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
Agag posted:The pseudoscientific part is where you overlap something that's medically detectable in some cases and map it to entire populations based on their economic class and political persuasion. Its just another variation on the "these people don't vote for us because they are dumb" argument that has been playing so well for Democrats. Are you anti-vax? Do you think global warming is a hoax perpetrated to stifle American industry? Is PTSD just being a big baby in your world?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:I'm all for support groups I just don't understand why they're hiding it behind retarded corporate lingo like "innovate yourself out of poverty" or "The Family Carpool Lane Tool, meanwhile, helps parents and their children align individual and family goals. Working together, they can avoid traffic and cruise through the fast lane." The non-profit world loving loves buzzwords and naming things, mainly because it helps them make better pitches to potential donors. If you have some dumb flashy name you can invoke it and hope someone at the fundraiser says 'Oh yeah I read an article about that' and then gives you money to help poor people. Basically, because they are not governments and have to rely on corporate donors to stay alive they have to adopt corporate lingo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:my economic plan is giivng poor people a copy of The Secret Its more of a plan than anyone in government has though
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If the depression was caused by living in poverty, wouldn't it actually be 100% accurate to call that treating a symptom? I mean, it's still definitely better to do that than to do nothing at all, but any solution to mental health issues created by living in poverty that isn't ending the poverty itself is, in fact, treating a symptom. Thats the point I was making though. Just because these things are only symptoms of poverty doesn't mean they aren't real problems in their own right with possible treatments. If the people involved had the ability to end poverty they would in a heartbeat, but theyre just a bunch of researchers and nonprofit people trying to do the most good with what resources they have. Treating the symptoms of poverty is literally the best they can do, so they do it, and hopefully actual human beings have their lives changed for the better. Its weird to me that so many people - not necessarily you but Condiv exists I guess - consistently pit helping real breathing human beings against ideological purity. call to action posted:You are projecting INSANELY hard on this issue, just so ya know This is literally my wife's field and something both of us believe in. There are a surprising number of people out there looking for any excuse possible to not help real people. You think this is projection, but its a thing that actually happens and comes from all over the political spectrum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
If the question is "Will this be used by assholes to downplay the problems of poverty?" then the answer is absolutely yes. But they would have found a billion other reasons to not help people regardless. The problem lies with the fact that they are assholes who don't want to help people, not with the existence of researchers trying to understand how poverty affects the brain and how to create coping strategies to make poverty suck less. Don't become an rear end in a top hat who doesn't want to help people just to spite the other assholes who don't want to help people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, there are absolutely a ton of people who loving love the idea of something they can portray as a biological basis for poverty, either because they want to believe that poor people inherently deserve to be poor and therefore poverty can't be eliminated, or because they want to pretend that it's the only thing responsible for poverty so that they don't have to address the systematic social and economic issues that are primarily responsible I'm beating a dead horse here but nobody* in cog sci thinks poverty is caused by poorbrains. Rather, the stress of being poor and the very different set of priorities causes poorbrains, which can be treated to an extent using cognitive therapy. It is super important to repeat to yourself over and over that poverty causes people to be hosed up, not that hosed up people cause their own poverty. All healthy babies from any socioeconomic rung start off in life basically the same and have the same potential. If you could eliminate poverty you'd also eliminate poorbrains because its an environmental problem, but that problem is much bigger in scope than what researchers can accomplish so theyre doing their best to treat what they can. *As always, assholes exist. Some scientists still deny climate change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:every local news station in the country is currently prepping a "scientists say people in poverty are stupid, more at 11" story and you're worried about what the Scientists are thinking And this is why I go off the deep end about this poo poo when it comes up. Its incredibly important to make the point accurately because it is so easily misunderstood, especially by people with an agenda. E: They would have just found some other reason to not give a poo poo about poor people anyways though. You can't not talk about poo poo that affects poor people because it might be used as fuel for the people who want to dismiss poor people. They want to dismiss poor people, they'll find a way. Welfare queens don't exist and welfare fraud is a meaningless fraction of corporate fraud but idiots still insist they're rampant problems dragging down America. You can't judge your policy around what the people who hate your policy will think. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I agree with you. This isn't what seems to be the consensus here though. When the only options are power hungry lunatics you can't stop them all
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:58 |
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:i'm sure hillary did nothing like that to confirm their worst stereotypes of out of touch coastal elites Whats amazing about that quote is that she hits the nail perfectly on the head, identifying exactly the segment of Trump supporters who could be appealed to with a little effort, and then proceeded to continue ignoring and failing to empathize with 'the other basket' for the entire election. And, of course, the quote displays the usual Hillary tactic of insulting and attacking a broad swathe of people first, thus tainting everything that comes after it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 23:20
|
|