As always, fascinating and interesting. I'm especially curious about executive function being quite heritable -- that seems unlikely to me. Most of what executive function really is, from my understanding, is "self-regulation." My observation (and certainly my experience) has been that if you grow up in circumstances detrimental to learning this (high conflict/lots of trauma/lots of unpredictability) you are almost certainly *also* getting terrible parental modeling. But when you grow up and get out of the unpredictable, dangerous environment and are able to start choosing your own models, these skills are absolutely learnable. I have a long way to go, but someone who measured my executive function the week after I left my parents' house vs today would see at least 2-3 standard deviations worth of improvement. I am also thinking of a family I know, with four kids. Regardless of any excuses (including being able to pay for it themselves) the kids do not get smartphones until their 16th birthday, period. And those kids all have good attention spans, including the ability to sit and read books for hours -- as do 100% of the homeschooled, not-on-smartphones kids I know.
Am I perhaps misunderstanding "heritable" here? I usually understand it to mean "inherited in the biological sense and mostly out of a person's control".
...And this is how you know that the "elites" are evil people.
This is a very interesting essay, which is very WELL cited, meaning that you two are not the only people who understand this progression of human blight. This also means that many people in positions of power are well aware of this process as well.
This essay is critically important because it gets to the "why." Everyone knows that the poor side of town is not the place to hang out at night, but few stop to think about how it gets to that point.
Also, it seems that the systematic way in which this all plays out is self supporting. It's not only self supporting, it's self supporting by people (in relatively high societal positions) who don't understand their particular role(s) in the outcome.
The strangest part about all of this, for me, is the time aspect. Most of the people taking part in this scheme aren't going to be alive long enough to see the outcome realized. I suppose that's because of the disconnect between those carrying out the work, and those who understand the outcome. But it begs the question, who is really driving this?
Who is pushing for these outcomes that, usually, will not be achieved until long after they're dead?
Or, to add a bit of a twist, who is currently working to make these outcomes achievable in a MUCH shorter period of time (one person’s lifetime)? Akin to what we are seeing play out in front of our eyes.
Regime-curated dysfunction is rooted in competition for power. Dysfunction constrains the subaltern classes. A demoralised, undereducated, population is relatively easy to govern. Managing expectations downwards relieves pressure on the elite.
“Poor folk dispersed among middle-class folk tend to do better, because there are far more folk pursuing middle-class life strategies to model, while middle-class norms are mutually reinforcing. “
No, they just ruin your neighborhood. White or black, they’re ruinous. This may have once been true , section 8 housing is sold as such, but subsidies , single mommy action heroines and drugs make the poor “poor” wherever they go in 🇺🇸, they simply metastasize their degeneracy.
Under-policing fiscal sinks makes a grim sort of sense, but it’s too conspiratorial for my taste. Too many people would have to be in on the secret for such schemes to have gone unnoticed for so long. It seems to me that there are less Machiavellian explanations.
The most obvious is that the rich and powerful have the influence to ensure that their side of town gets more city and county resources of all kinds, including police presence.
In addition, for at least the last few decades, policing fiscal sinks areas runs the risk of violent interactions between officers and members of minority groups. Such incidents can quickly spark riots, especially given a hostile press that is wedded to the oppressor-oppressed narrative. Such a dynamic would provide plenty of incentive for cities to back away from aggressive law enforcement.
And how does the campaign to place soft-on-crime DAs into office fit in with the cost-benefit calculation that under-policing implies? In the U.S., financier George Soros has funded the political campaigns of a number of such DAs. His motivation doesn’t seem to have anything to do with writing off urban areas because they don’t provide significant tax revenues.
And what is the motivation of the DAs that he helps get elected? Surely it’s more likely to be anger against a society that they consider to be unjust than maximizing cost-benefit ratios.
Finally, if the decision to abandon fiscal sinks is all about money, it hasn’t worked very well. Homelessness and crime are driving taxpayers away from blue cities and states in the U.S.. At some point, wouldn’t the conspirators change their tactics if they were motivated by the bottom line and not by ideology?
Have deleted another valueless comment. Once again, pls don't lower the tone around here.
This is fascinating, thank you for posting it.
Thank you. Very disturbing image, but a sad reality everywhere.
As always, fascinating and interesting. I'm especially curious about executive function being quite heritable -- that seems unlikely to me. Most of what executive function really is, from my understanding, is "self-regulation." My observation (and certainly my experience) has been that if you grow up in circumstances detrimental to learning this (high conflict/lots of trauma/lots of unpredictability) you are almost certainly *also* getting terrible parental modeling. But when you grow up and get out of the unpredictable, dangerous environment and are able to start choosing your own models, these skills are absolutely learnable. I have a long way to go, but someone who measured my executive function the week after I left my parents' house vs today would see at least 2-3 standard deviations worth of improvement. I am also thinking of a family I know, with four kids. Regardless of any excuses (including being able to pay for it themselves) the kids do not get smartphones until their 16th birthday, period. And those kids all have good attention spans, including the ability to sit and read books for hours -- as do 100% of the homeschooled, not-on-smartphones kids I know.
Am I perhaps misunderstanding "heritable" here? I usually understand it to mean "inherited in the biological sense and mostly out of a person's control".
...And this is how you know that the "elites" are evil people.
This is a very interesting essay, which is very WELL cited, meaning that you two are not the only people who understand this progression of human blight. This also means that many people in positions of power are well aware of this process as well.
This essay is critically important because it gets to the "why." Everyone knows that the poor side of town is not the place to hang out at night, but few stop to think about how it gets to that point.
Also, it seems that the systematic way in which this all plays out is self supporting. It's not only self supporting, it's self supporting by people (in relatively high societal positions) who don't understand their particular role(s) in the outcome.
The strangest part about all of this, for me, is the time aspect. Most of the people taking part in this scheme aren't going to be alive long enough to see the outcome realized. I suppose that's because of the disconnect between those carrying out the work, and those who understand the outcome. But it begs the question, who is really driving this?
Who is pushing for these outcomes that, usually, will not be achieved until long after they're dead?
Or, to add a bit of a twist, who is currently working to make these outcomes achievable in a MUCH shorter period of time (one person’s lifetime)? Akin to what we are seeing play out in front of our eyes.
Regime-curated dysfunction is rooted in competition for power. Dysfunction constrains the subaltern classes. A demoralised, undereducated, population is relatively easy to govern. Managing expectations downwards relieves pressure on the elite.
“Poor folk dispersed among middle-class folk tend to do better, because there are far more folk pursuing middle-class life strategies to model, while middle-class norms are mutually reinforcing. “
No, they just ruin your neighborhood. White or black, they’re ruinous. This may have once been true , section 8 housing is sold as such, but subsidies , single mommy action heroines and drugs make the poor “poor” wherever they go in 🇺🇸, they simply metastasize their degeneracy.
Under-policing fiscal sinks makes a grim sort of sense, but it’s too conspiratorial for my taste. Too many people would have to be in on the secret for such schemes to have gone unnoticed for so long. It seems to me that there are less Machiavellian explanations.
The most obvious is that the rich and powerful have the influence to ensure that their side of town gets more city and county resources of all kinds, including police presence.
In addition, for at least the last few decades, policing fiscal sinks areas runs the risk of violent interactions between officers and members of minority groups. Such incidents can quickly spark riots, especially given a hostile press that is wedded to the oppressor-oppressed narrative. Such a dynamic would provide plenty of incentive for cities to back away from aggressive law enforcement.
And how does the campaign to place soft-on-crime DAs into office fit in with the cost-benefit calculation that under-policing implies? In the U.S., financier George Soros has funded the political campaigns of a number of such DAs. His motivation doesn’t seem to have anything to do with writing off urban areas because they don’t provide significant tax revenues.
And what is the motivation of the DAs that he helps get elected? Surely it’s more likely to be anger against a society that they consider to be unjust than maximizing cost-benefit ratios.
Finally, if the decision to abandon fiscal sinks is all about money, it hasn’t worked very well. Homelessness and crime are driving taxpayers away from blue cities and states in the U.S.. At some point, wouldn’t the conspirators change their tactics if they were motivated by the bottom line and not by ideology?