Re:The “Giving free cash to the poor will make them lazy” th...
by dahart on Thursday July 12, 2018 @12:31PM
(#17516203)
> Money that has been earned through work gives the recipient a higher level of satisfaction than money that has been gifted.
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.
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.