Money that has been earned through work gives the recipient a higher level of satisfaction than money that has been gifted.
> knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told
Knowledge gained through personal experience stays with you longer and more effectively than second-hand knowledge. That's why the traditional, frontal lecture teaching style is falling more and more out of fashion. That's also why you can't just read a book "Learn C++ in 21 days" and expect to be a decent programmer afterwards.
> success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs
I have no idea why you're mixing success and stability, when those are orthogonal concepts. As for success: A lack of competition leads to stagnation; monopolies lead to rising prices and hinder progress. Look to the Soviet Union and you'll see what coorporation and social programs instead of competition through free markets leads to [1]. As for risk: Risk is what you naturally get once all the lowest hanging fruit are picked and there are still ripe fruits hanging higher up in the tree.
[1] Of course, in a competitive environment you'll still need cooperation. Competition on a higher level (i.e., in the market) and cooporation on a lower one (between coworkers) tends to work quite well for companies.
That is certainly widely believed and assumed to be true. Do you have evidence to back that statement up? And what does "satisfaction" mean? Is short term satisfaction about money related to long term life stability or happiness? What does higher level of satisfaction mean? How much higher? What level of satisfaction is the goal? Do we need to reach a certain level of satisfaction before it's okay to hand out money?
The problem with your statement in this context is that the author of the article offered contradictory evidence. Are you claiming the author or the evidence is wrong?
> Knowledge gained through personal experience stays with you longer and more effectively than second-hand knowledge.
That widely believed to be true, it's a super strongly held cultural belief that relates to the concept of hard work. But language is the first thing we learn, and we learn it by rote not by principles or derivations. And languages are hard to learn. So hard that educators believe you can't learn them well late in life.
Most education is by rote and example, and not by "critical thinking" or by struggle, no matter how much people like to wax philosophical about the importance of those things. Most of what we learn and teach is simply shown and remembered.
> That's why the traditional, frontal lecture teaching style is falling more and more out of fashion. That's also why you can't just read a book "Learn C++ in 21 days" and expect to be a decent programmer afterwards.
The thing missing from your examples seems to be practice, and not a distinction between derivations and second hand knowledge. Things that are used & practiced stay with you longer than concepts you are told once but don't repeat or apply to anything.
The things you're stating, you're stating as belief. What I'm saying is that if the bar needs to be scientific evidence for proving that the poor can handle cash handouts, then the bar also needs to be scientific evidence for proving that the rich can handle cash handouts.
So, “hypothesis”? The article did present some evidence to support it’s argument. I’m sure you know that when discussing evidence and science, “theory” means something has been more or less proven.
Your hypotheses that a significant number people will do nothing good with the money is the unproven “myth” or common hypothesis the article was talking about.
The problem with the belief that unearned income is unhealthy and will lead to laziness and drug use in any significant amount is that it prevents people from trying to see what happens, because if true, it’s seen as at best a waste of money, and at worst doing damage to the participants. The hypothesis that unearned income leads to laziness is a real and significant impediment to the testing of that hypothesis.
By and large, people who inherit money don’t end up wasting away high and broke. There are a few, but nobody is suggesting seriously that we need to do lots of studies to see if inherited wealth is different in other countries or rural vs urban settings. Why should money given to the poor be thought of so completely different than money given to the rich?
We have some strong pervasive ingrained cultural beliefs that money must be worked for and not given, knowledge must be gained by derivation and struggle and not just told, success and stability must be attained through risk and competition and not cooperation or social programs.
These beliefs predate most of science, so it may be worth examining our assumptions about what needs to be tested.