The mathematical case against blaming people for their misfortune | Hacker News Reader

The mathematical case against blaming people for their misfortune

psyche.co

37 pointsrespinal7 comments

The people who blame the poor for their situation are imagining something like an alcoholic gambler, not an entrepreneur who made a bad bet.

The problem with this statement is that not all alcoholic gamblers are poor. So only the poor ones will get treated badly.

Alcoholic gambler is a pretty nice approximation for life in general. For the individual, life is a very complicated gamble where you have no hope of understanding every single bet. The only difference is in complexity.

The poor alcoholic gambler fails at the most basic bets, the average poor human still fails but he is faced with far more complicated bets like choosing a college, degree, job, etc. STEM degrees might be an obvious way to avoid poverty, but not everyone makes it through one or even gets the chance to go to college at all. Even after they finish, the tuition debt can turn a good bet into a bad one very quickly.

Decisions are made based on preciously gained information and learned experiences, if anything is to blame for poor decisions it is the conditions that led to that brain state. Although free will appears to be an illusion because of the deterministic nature of physical systems, the way we understand blame may be inaccurate.

> if anything is to blame for poor decisions it is the conditions that led to that brain state.

This stumbles into the non-sequitur of assuming poor circunstances are caused by poor decisions.

_Very_ often the circunstances leading to misfortune are caused by random chance or decisions beyond the control of those suffering the misfortune.

You may be able to make that assumption, but I never stated anywhere that poor decisions were to blame. I'm simply making an observation about the causality of what people might consider to be poor decision making. If the universe is deterministic, placing blame on any person makes no sense, but we can analyze the conditions that led to the decision in order to alter future conditions.

I'm going to wait out the debate as to whether success is entirely caused by hard work, or entirely caused by luck, until the internet sorts it out.

Consider also the zero-sum advantage that powerful or wealthy people have which directly works against poor or upstart individuals.

In the case of the cab medallion, if Uber had been fully held to the law in terms of regulations, then the traditional taxi business would not have taken such a hit. Whether the traditional taxi business sucked or not is beside the point, as it is unfair competition when one competitor doesn't have to play by the rules. Uber got away with it for so long because it had resources which an individual fair player would not have had.

Likewise, as evidenced by people like Trump who have repeatedly failed with businesses and had debts reduced or forgiven (and then were given more loans to go repeat the process), poor regular people just don't have that option. When they take a risk, it is a real risk.

Current financial and business systems are stacked in favor of the already rich or powerful, so to rise up from nothing requires far more than hard work and a good idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com