SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Income inequality in America has been growing rapidly, and is expected to increase [PDF]. While the widening wealth gap is a hot topic in the media and on the campaign trail, there's quite a disconnect between the perceptions of economists and those of the general public.
For instance, surveys show people tend to underestimate the income disparity between the top and bottom 20% of Americans, and overestimate the opportunity for poor individuals to climb the social ladder. Additionally, a majority of adults believe that corporations conduct business fairly despite evidence to the contrary and that the government should not act to reduce income inequality.
Even though inequality is increasing, Americans seem to believe that our social and economic systems work exactly as they should. This perspective has intrigued social scientists for decades. My colleague Andrei Cimpian and I have demonstrated in our recent research that these beliefs that our society is fair and just may take root in the first years of life, stemming from our fundamental desire to explain the world around us.
http://theconversation.com/lifes-not-fair-so-why-do-we-assume-it-is-45981
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday September 10 2015, @06:42PM
It's the "just-world fallacy" in action. People take a lot of SAN damage if they don't believe patently false things like "everything happens for a good reason" and "in the end it all works out." Also, a lot of people have a religious need to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds, contra all the evidence, possibly for fear that their just and loving and mind-reading God will torture them in the flames of Hell for all eternity if they so much as think he fucked up...
THAT, of course, leads into about eleventy-seven hojillion different flavors of victim blaming, especially for anyone not male and reasonably wealthy.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zinho on Thursday September 10 2015, @07:33PM
Also, a lot of people have a religious need to believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. . .
Which religions teach that? I thought the "best of all possible worlds" thing was a conceit of philosophers Leibniz, specifically) [wikipedia.org] and was thoroughly discredited by Voltaire when he published Candide. [wikipedia.org] TL;DR version of Candide: if this is the best of all possible worlds, I'd hate to see the other ones; this one has some serious problems.
I'm going to throw my hat in the ring and agree that any religious person who thinks they'll be punished for thinking this world isn't perfect needs a better doctrine. People make mistakes all the time, and those mistakes have consequences; in short, this world isn't perfect because we aren't either. Believing that the world can't be better is the same as saying we (as both a species and as individuals) can't make better choices; this is objectively wrong, and fatalistic. I fall firmly in the "free will" camp, and I think that blaming God for our mistakes is many kinds of messed up. It implies that He is choosing poorly for us, forcing us into bad situations and imposing negative consequences on us for the decisions He imposed on us. Anyone who simultaneously believes that is really happening and also believes that God is benevolent and loving has some serious double-think going on.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:15PM
> Which religions teach that?
Having a religious need for something isn't the same as making it an explicit part of doctrine.
That said, it occasionally crops up in less sophisticated apologetics when the problem of evil is approached (though not half as much as "Satan did it"). The number of people who can't elaborate on their faith any deeper than concepts like panglossian theodicy or Pascal's Wager are sadly common.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:51PM
Good point. We desperately need a "sad but true" mod option. I'll settle for "insightful" on this one.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @08:44PM
this is objectively wrong, and fatalistic.
I believe we probably can make "better" ("better" is subjective) choices, depending on what you mean by "better". But you have not shown that this line of thinking is objectively wrong. If our genetics make us far more likely to make certain choices as a species than other, 'better' choices, then this line of thinking might not be objectively wrong after all.
I fall firmly in the "free will" camp
Free will doesn't exist, at least not in the sense that many believe. I admit, there are different definitions of "free will" which are technically compatible with a scientific worldview, but I was not referring to those. We are all subject to the laws of physics. It's a nice illusion, though.
and I think that blaming God for our mistakes is many kinds of messed up.
You're right. Why blame beings that are extremely likely to be imaginary for our failings? That is indeed silly.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday September 10 2015, @10:15PM
this is objectively wrong, and fatalistic.
I believe we probably can make "better" ("better" is subjective) choices, depending on what you mean by "better". But you have not shown that this line of thinking is objectively wrong. If our genetics make us far more likely to make certain choices as a species than other, 'better' choices, then this line of thinking might not be objectively wrong after all.
OK, let's get specific, then. Spousal/child abuse is a poor choice on the part of the abuser, and has negative impacts on the abuser, the abuse victims, and society in general (abused children tend to be antisocial). The abuse is cyclical, with victims often becoming abusers in turn. It's fair to assert that our genetics make people in these circumstances more likely to make certain choices than other choices. As a society we're moving toward a position of recognizing the harm abuse causes, and providing care and treatment to both the victims and the abusers. On an individual level, abusers can seek help to find other solutions to their problems and repair the harms they've caused. Victims likewise can learn to avoid future abuse and make better choices than the ones they've seen modeled by their abusers. The result can be happier, better-adjusted individuals, families, and societies. I hope we can agree, without devolving into an ivory-tower discussion on the merits of hedonics, that having fewer battered spouses and children in our society is a net win for everyone, and therefore "better". Lots of people are in situations that are objectively bad, and for those who want to make their situation less bad (i.e. "better") help is available and change is possible. Saying that individuals cannot change bad behaviors is objectively wrong: even one counterexample is enough for that, and there are many more than one example of successful intervention and treatment for abuse, addiction, etc.
As far as free will not existing, I'm not concerned much by the neurology research about human cognition. In the absence of coercion and/or brainwashing, people end up choosing the things that they want to do. Eventually we'll have a really good understanding of the physics behind decision making, and perhaps even conscious and unconscious thought. With or without that knowledge, people will continue to choose to rise above their genetics, environment, and upbringing. Whether you want to call that free will or not is unimportant.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @11:00PM
Lots of people are in situations that are objectively bad
You lost me. There is no "objectively bad". A grand majority of people can find X bad, but you can't conclude from that that X is objectively bad.
Saying that individuals cannot change bad behaviors is objectively wrong
It's not about whether individuals can change behaviors; it's about whether enough individuals can change their behaviors and affect society to such a degree that we can prevent the so-called atrocities that humans have caused time and time again throughout history. So far, it doesn't seem probable, so you're on the losing side when you say it's "objectively wrong", unless you're responding to someone who claims it's absolutely impossible rather than just improbable. I maintain that it's merely improbable, and there is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence that demonstrates that.
So I was thinking about large-scale effects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 10 2015, @11:53PM
Just one thing to point out about spousal abuse, as someone who grew up in a family with an abusive parent:
Abuse is often the response of the individual to having been abused as a child, although not always.
In my family, my mother was the abuser. She abused and assaulted my father until he left, then had him charged with assaulting her after she punched herself until she was covered in bruises.
She physically assaulted me as a toddler, the damage she caused is lifelong and no amount of therapy can repair it. (It's physical, neurological, in nature.) My father left, and we didn't get to see him for five years because she convinced the court he was a danger to her and us as children.
Meanwhile, as a child, I was beaten with electrical cables and vacuum cleaner attachments. I was shoved into walls, verbally abused, and of course, psychologically abused.
My father, as a child, lived through some very weird abuse, things like not being allowed to wear trousers until he was 13, and stuff he won't even talk about. He had brothers who were paranoid schizophrenic, and he ended up in a number of foster homes. My mother, on the other hand, had a fairy tale upbringing yet she has some serious psychological (presumably organic or structural) issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11 2015, @01:19AM
You think male victims aren't blamed. When did people stop laughing at prison rape jokes? When did people stop using the phrase "man up" whenever anyone wants to shame a male into doing something?
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday September 11 2015, @03:56AM
When the hell did I say that?! If men took a good long look at the way what is called "the patriarchy" works, they'd realize the ones hurting them are OTHER MEN a huge majority of the time!
I'm active, low-level, against human trafficking and prostitution. A surprising number of the victims are males. And there is almost nothing out there for them. I, a lesbian and a feminist, have been told "you're the first one to listen to me and take me seriously about this." What does that say?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...