Excellent. First, on on how merit isn't enough to escape poverty - it takes luck in order to acquire the necessary skills to have merit in the first place. It is not simply a matter of choice. To reiterate what I was saying recently with regards to speech : yes, you can and do make choices and bear a measure of responsibility for them. But you do not bear the whole measure, because the opportunities and choices available to you are also down, in part, to the choices and opportunities that other people have made. Without the opportunity - the necessary luck - to acquire skills, you won't get anywhere.
My escape was made up of a series of incredibly unlikely events, none of which I had real control over... At age 14, I’d had eight years of trying to teach myself using photocopied handouts, without textbooks, lesson plans, aids, or even a teacher. I was desperate to get out and terrified of winding up like the people I saw around me at the Christian compound. So, I picked up the phonebook and started dialling trade schools, colleges, anything and anyone that might give me a new option. Randomly, unexpectedly, I reached the president of the local community college, Sherry Hoppe.
At that same college, I met Bruce Cantrell, a professor who wound up being like a father figure to me while I was navigating being 15 and poor... A few years later he ran for office and made me his campaign manager. We won and I got a priceless education in the reality of Roane County bare-knuckle politics. I’ll forever be grateful to Bruce and Sherry. With their help, I ultimately got my accredited college degree.
Did I show initiative? Sure. And there have been many people who have interpreted my escape from poverty as a confirmation of some foundational meritocracy that justifies the whole system. But the fact is hillbilly country is full of people just as desperate to get out as me, and taking just as inventive a set of measures. Yes, I am the exception that proves the rule—but that rule is that escape from poverty is a matter of chance, and not a matter of merit... The narrative in the neo-liberal west is that if you work hard, things work out. If things don’t work out, we have the tendency to blame the victim, leaving them without any choices.
Second, the science of how poverty affects the brain, not only long after it's been removed, but even down through the generations. There's more to heritability than genetics.
In human children, epigenetic changes in stress receptor gene expression that lead to heightened stress responses and mood disorders have been measured in response to childhood abuse. And last year, researchers at Duke University found that “lower socioeconomic status during adolescence is associated with an increase in methylation of the proximal promoter of the serotonin transporter gene,” which primes the amygdala—the brain’s center for emotion and fear—for “threat-related amygdala reactivity.” While there may be some advantages to being primed to experience high levels of stress (learning under stress, for example, may be accelerated), the basic message of these studies is consistent: Chronic stress and uncertainty during childhood makes stress more difficult to deal with as an adult.
Studies of mice and fruit flies have shown that epigenetic traits similar to the ones Meaney proposed can be passed down, and last for dozens of generations. The effects of things like diet and prenatal parental stress have been observed to be inherited, not just through histone modifications, but also through DNA methylation and non-coding RNAs. In one 2014 study, the offspring of a mouse trained to fear a particular smell were observed to also fear that smell, even with no previous exposure to it. The effect lasted for two generations. In humans, inheritable effects of stress have been observed through at least three generations from parents who survived mass starvation (Dutch Hunger Winter), a fluctuating food supply (the Överkalix cohort) and the Holocaust.
What kind of a bootstrap or merit-based game can we be left with if poverty cripples the contestants? Especially if it has intergenerational effects? The uglier converse of the bootstrap hypothesis—that those who fail to transcend their circumstances deserve them—makes even less sense in the face of the grim biology of poverty. When the firing gun goes off, the poor are well behind the start line.
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/why-poverty-is-like-a-disease
Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whose cloud is it anyway ?
I really don't understand the most militant climate activists who are also opposed to geoengineering . Or rather, I think I understand t...
-
"To claim that you are being discriminated against because you have lost your right to discriminate against others shows a gross lack o...
-
For all that I know the Universe is under no obligation to make intuitive sense, I still don't like quantum mechanics. Just because some...
-
Hmmm. [The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, where...
the argument that poverty/wealth is based on anything like merit is just a fantasy of the wealthy to make themselves feel superior and worthy
ReplyDeleteAnd to absolve themselves of any sense of responsibility or obligation.
ReplyDeleteI think that, within any (but by no means all !) given discipline, it may well be true that some people earn more money/receive more accolades because they are actually better than other people. But that's about as far as it goes. Even within specific areas there will be an enormous amount that's due to chance. And when we get to the real extremes - genuine poverty and the super-rich, ability may play little role - but it isn't just chance or ability either. Rather, the system itself is unfair. Different jobs are rewarded at massively different levels : a scientist who earns the highest possible salary can barely compete with the lowliest professional footballer (astronaut starting salaries, bizarrely, are barely much better than well-paid postdocs). So for the top earners there is not only an element of chance (natural abilities which can be developed through effort, random events) but also desire (choice as to which path to take) as well as systematic effects (salary levels which individuals have no control over, but aren't down to chance either).
ReplyDeleteIt's not that the highest earners have no ability. It's more that their respective fields have far more opportunities to earn more than other fields requiring the same level of experience. As for the poorest, the article does a very nice job explaining why this is a systematic problem. Whether you call this chance or something else depends on your point of view : to the individual, it is bad luck; to society it is not. Individuals caught in the trap can do little but struggle to escape, but society as a whole has a choice to offer a way out.
Will come back to this.
ReplyDeleteearnings generally seem to be tied not to usefulness or bravery or originality or any of those good works but to profitability -- give the people what they want to pay for in large numbers, which is usually entertainment
ReplyDelete