Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass • Hacker News Board

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#11

Post by brondaire » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:10 PM UTC

Anytime an article hits Hacker News such as this; that is, with explicit references to class and socioeconomic status, I cringe as I read the comments. The comments are both predictable, and utterly devastating.

Psychology is largely at play here, since both the Fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) and cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) have extremely strong effects. For the most part, the readership here often seems to be completely unaware of the daily realities of a very real underclass in western societies. Environment has a profound effect on our individual development.

I've lived a privileged life. I have many close friends who were not so fortunate. I could not possibly imagine my life circumstances today if I had to face what some of my friends did.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#12

Post by watmough » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:14 PM UTC

sethg wrote: post #6

SandB0x wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much validity is there in positing the evolution of different contemporary human subgroups when these change at a fairly rapid rate and intermingle quite readily? The article doesn't suggest that subgroups have evolved, rather that we have evolved to produce offspring sooner and faster in response to harsh conditions. (So basically what you write in the rest of your post agrees with the article. I think!)

Do we even need to hypothesize this as a specialized evolutionary response? “My life sucks; studying hard and looking for a job will not make it suck less, because even if I get good grades, nobody will hire me; however, if I have a baby, then there will at least be something cute in my immediate environment that loves me” looks like a straightforward chain of logical reasoning to me.

If there is a shortage of viable fathers in the local community, then having a baby will frequently lead to preferential financial and housing outcomes. More benefits, and a much better chance of getting social housing.

There's very little way to get out of this cycle, besides either creating a lot of jobs, sufficient that men become useful, or simply increasing peoples' benefits such that strategies like having babies no longer get you a better outcome.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#13

Post by KingOfB » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:15 PM UTC

The title to the article is a total troll. The real interesting factor is that an 'upper class' has evolved that reduces birth rates in exchange for power (education/money). The underclass has always been there. It might be interesting to compare growth rates of the two, but neither are a new thing.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#14

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:19 PM UTC

Unseelie wrote: post #10

yummyfajitas wrote: post #7

The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…

You're discounting the argument that the fast lifestyle isn't a response to poverty, but a response to expectations of poverty. Environment as it affects someone born into poverty without examples of persons who grow out of it, rather than a grad student(really a laughable argument that a grad student is 'poor' considering the value of their education.) or an immigrant to the nation, come to find opportunity...

The theory that people respond to expected future "poverty" [1] rather than their current circumstances is certainly harder to falsify.

But I definitely dispute the assertion that people living in poor regions lack examples of people who grew out of it. It's certainly not true in the poor neighborhoods I've lived in (and currently live in). There are plenty of people who stayed in school, kept their heads down and achieved a solidly middle class lifestyle. They often remain involved with the local community, typically the church and extended family.

[1] I find it very difficult to use the term "poverty" to describe the bottom 10% of Americans, seeing as all their material needs are met and they consume more leisure than any other group.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#15

Post by greenlblue » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:20 PM UTC

Not much new here but I'm always suspicious of anything with an 'evolutionary psychology approved' sticker. I know that the basis of the theory is that most behavior is a response to maximizing gene propagation but I haven't seen the theory used to rule out any behaviors. It basically justifies whatever is the status quo with what sounds like science because the initial hypothesis sounds reasonable and scientific.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#16

Post by _delirium » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:20 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #7

The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…

If indeed "personal choices" rather than "environment" are the main driving factor, are you arguing that somehow huge numbers of people who coincidentally make the same choices were born and raised in geographically similar areas? How else do you explain the fact that people who grew up West Virginia are much poorer on average than people who grew up in Connecticut? Some sort of genetic abnormality that makes CT residents make better choices than WV residents? Positing an environmental component (growing up in WV is worse than growing up in CT) seems more plausible.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#17

Post by willchang » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:27 PM UTC

Unseelie wrote: post #10

yummyfajitas wrote: post #7

The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…

You're discounting the argument that the fast lifestyle isn't a response to poverty, but a response to expectations of poverty. Environment as it affects someone born into poverty without examples of persons who grow out of it, rather than a grad student(really a laughable argument that a grad student is 'poor' considering the value of their education.) or an immigrant to the nation, come to find opportunity...

You can both be right: A fast lifestyle (1) is caused by expecting poverty and (2) causes poverty; but I think that Unseelie's (and the article's) point is the more significant one. In order to fight poverty, you have to give people a reason to change their expectations, without which it would be impossible to change their behavior.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#18

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:29 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #16

yummyfajitas wrote: post #7

The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…

If indeed "personal choices" rather than "environment" are the main driving factor, are you arguing that somehow huge numbers of people who coincidentally make the same choices were born and raised in geographically similar areas? How else do you explain the fact that people who grew up West Virginia are much poorer on average than people who grew up in Connecticut? Some sort of genetic abnormality that makes CT resi…

Would you dispute the fact that children of people who practice Judaism are likely to practice Judaism themselves? If not, why would you find it unlikely that the children of people who practice a fast lifestyle might similarly repeat their parent's behavior?

Some components of personality are genetic (and not just heritable), as has been demonstrated by many twin studies. But we hardly need to invoke genetics to explain the heritability of behavior.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#19

Post by _delirium » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:32 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #18

_delirium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If indeed "personal choices" rather than "environment" are the main driving factor, are you arguing that somehow huge numbers of people who coincidentally make the same choices were born and raised in geographically similar areas? How else do you explain the fact that people who grew up West Virginia are much poorer on average than people who grew up in Connecticut? Some sort of genetic abnormality that makes CT resi…

Would you dispute the fact that children of people who practice Judaism are likely to practice Judaism themselves? If not, why would you find it unlikely that the children of people who practice a fast lifestyle might similarly repeat their parent's behavior? Some components of personality are genetic (and not just heritable), as has been demonstrated by many twin studies. But we hardly need to invoke genetics to exp…

Sure, but that's what I thought I was arguing, since kids inheriting behaviors from their parents is one kind of environmental factor. I'm not sure I'd call it a "personal choice", given that one doesn't choose one's parents, and doesn't fully choose what aspects of one's environment to be influenced by. There's lots of room for personal choices, of course, but I think they all happen against a strong background of environmental influence---from parents, schools, media, neighborhoods, friends, business cycles, employers, natural disasters, and who knows what else---that shapes which choices are available and salient.

Re: Die young, live fast: The evolution of an underclass

#20

Post by billybob » Thu, Jul 22, 2010, 7:33 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #7

The article is seriously flawed, because it completely discounts the possibility that the fast lifestyle is the cause of the pathologies of the poor. It mentions the oft-cited statistic that 2000 calories of junk food is cheaper than 2000 calories of vegetables. The fact is true, but irrelevant; if you are overweight or obese (as most of the poor are), you can reduce your caloric intake and increase food quality for…

Clearly, everyone makes choices, which is why you have inspiring rags-to-riches stories and tragic "how did they go so wrong" stories.

But a big part of your environment is your culture. The Indian immigrants in Jersey City, I suspect, still see themselves as Indian, probably grow up in stable families, and are given discipline, role models, encouragement, and expectations of achievement. Surely that makes a bigger difference than what goes on in one's neighborhood.

If you live near gangs, that's one thing. If your dad left and your brother is in a gang and the music all your peers listen to says "the goal of life is to be the baddest gangster," that's quite another.