On 06/06/2016 02:22 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: > https://medium.com/utopia-for-realists/why-do-the-poor-make-such-poor-decisions-f05d84c44f1a > was interesting, vis a vis what happens when you just give poor people > money.
Excerpt: > So in concrete terms, just how much dumber does poverty make you? > > "Our effects correspond to between 13 and 14 IQ points," Shafir says. "That’s > comparable to losing a night’s sleep or the effects of alcoholism." What’s > remarkable is that we could have figured all this out 30 years ago. Shafir > and Mullainathan weren’t relying on anything so complicated as brain scans. > "Economists have been studying poverty for years and psychologists have been > studying cognitive limitations for years,” Shafir explains. “We just put two > and two together." That is a good read. Thanks. > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: > >> A problem with the >> "day jobber" approach is the narrowing of substantial things to what >> happens to be in the interest of dominant organizations. Even in silicon >> valley, that's a harsh narrowing of the possible. So I would say do it to >> make the world interesting and not just for humanitarian reasons. Yep. We can't be arrogant enough to think we don't need those large hubs of intention, though. I can imagine if there's any truth to the scale-free network concept, then lots of people _should_ sign over their labor to the interests of some large organization. But that's a far cry from the current thinking that everybody should have a "job" and that over simplifies around unemployment stats. When I hear politicians say things like "job creator" or talk about how the people want jobs, I get a little nauseous. The word "job" has always had an obligatory tone to it. Objective-oriented people, in my experience, tend to talk about things like career paths or in terms of dreams, roles, achievements, etc. If they talk about jobs, it's usually in the context of using a job as a stepping stone toward their objective. Jobs are tools, means to an end, not ends in themselves. I suppose it's kinda like those motorcycle commercials that say things like "The journey is the destination". No, the destination is the destination and the journey is the journey. Sheesh. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't have fun while using your tool. And some tools are way more fun than others. But anyone who talks about creating tools just for the sake of the tool, is ... well, a bit of a tool. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
