Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, imma say that's complete bullsh*t on your part. It would have made a tremendous different.Sure, you may have wasted the money with your immaturity...
not really, my parents both made a lot of money, and I had a job that paid well above minimum...
I'd admit there are people who are not native who didn't have that kind of opportunity or privilege, but no, you are incorrect, 240 a month would not have improved my life in any meaningful way.
maybe if I had saved it all, never spending anything, etc, sure. But that is hardly the point of the program. If native kids were in a situation where they were able to save money for further education, I wouldnt support giving them incentive to be educated at all. though, im not 100% in support of the program anyways
Originally posted by Robtard
Is it as bad as N. Americans who love to tell you that they're 1/50th Apache or Cherokee?
huh, I've not come across those type... I can imagine it would be annoying...
Originally posted by inimalist
not really, my parents both made a lot of money, and I had a job that paid well above minimum...I'd admit there are people who are not native who didn't have that kind of opportunity or privilege, but no, you are incorrect, 240 a month would not have improved my life in any meaningful way.
maybe if I had saved it all, never spending anything, etc, sure. But that is hardly the point of the program. If native kids were in a situation where they were able to save money for further education, I wouldnt support giving them incentive to be educated at all. though, im not 100% in support of the program
BTW that $60/week attendance bonus was back in the early 90's.
I imagine it is quite a bit more now. Say $100/week.
That is $400/500 per month just to show up to school daily.
Originally posted by inimalist
not really, my parents both made a lot of money, and I had a job that paid well above minimum...
I thought the "thought problem" was for a poor person attending highschool?
In that instance, yes, it would help a bunch. In my case, it would have also helped a bunch.
My parents made just enough to keep us house, clothed, and fed...but not much else. 😄
Originally posted by theICONiac
BTW that $60/week attendance bonus was back in the early 90's.I imagine it is quite a bit more now. Say $100/week.
That is $400/500 per month just to show up to school daily.
and yet the graduation rate for native kids is terrible
obviously throwing money at them isn't going to make their life better
they certainly aren't benefiting much from the policy....
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought the "thought problem" was for a poor person attending highschool?In that instance, yes, it would help a bunch. In my case, it would have also helped a bunch.
My parents made just enough to keep us house, clothed, and fed...but not much else. 😄
it might be even more effective in a situation like where you are from. I don't want to make assumptions, but I'd imagine the environment you were from wasn't as toxic to your upbringing as reserves can be
Originally posted by inimalist
it might be even more effective in a situation like where you are from. I don't want to make assumptions, but I'd imagine the environment you were from wasn't as toxic to your upbringing as reserves can be
All the more reason that a teen should get out and attend highschool.
And...I REALLY could have used a $60 a week stipend. pained
Originally posted by inimalist
and yet for some reason they don'tapparently throwing money at the situation doesn't work
The situation doesn't have money being thrown at it, quite apparently.
They must pursue the money/apply for it.
But why don't they go to school if they get a stipend? Seems like a really good reason to go...especially if you're poor and live in an oppressive home.
The real question is: are they even aware that they get this program IF they go to school? Maybe throwing more money at the situation is the solution: advertising it. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your comeback has devastated my perspective.
on this one we really dont even need to get into the mechanisms of human motivation on any theoretical level
social psych has run these types of studies for years. Money motivates some types of behaviour, but not others. In specific tests to see if money improved grades, got students to attend more classes, etc, it has been shown repeatedly that paying people actually makes them less interested in what they are doing. In terms of schooling, money has just flat out been shown not to work. This is true in controlled studies and in real world applications.
as logical as it might be for someone to want to take advantage of being paid to go to school, for some reason, giving them money for it as encouragement is actually counter-productive. I'm not a social psychologist nor do I really do anything regarding this type of motivation, so I can't comment too deeply on the mechanisms involved here, but this is intro soc-psych stuff. I don't even know the specific studies, because this concept is covered as a general principle in intro texts; it is that robust is what I mean.
Originally posted by inimalist
on this one we really dont even need to get into the mechanisms of human motivation on any theoretical levelsocial psych has run these types of studies for years. Money motivates some types of behaviour, but not others. In specific tests to see if money improved grades, got students to attend more classes, etc, it has been shown repeatedly that paying people actually makes them less interested in what they are doing. In terms of schooling, money has just flat out been shown not to work. This is true in controlled studies and in real world applications.
as logical as it might be for someone to want to take advantage of being paid to go to school, for some reason, giving them money for it as encouragement is actually counter-productive. I'm not a social psychologist nor do I really do anything regarding this type of motivation, so I can't comment too deeply on the mechanisms involved here, but this is intro soc-psych stuff. I don't even know the specific studies, because this concept is covered as a general principle in intro texts; it is that robust is what I mean.
1. Sometimes, when someone disagrees with you, you say that it has been studied and then talk about an almost irrelevant study. The scenario is not "money being offered to someone to get an education". The scenario is, "money is being offered to someone, that is living in a toxic home, to leave that toxic home at least for part of the day."
2. When someone disagrees with you, you like to top off your disagreements with "this is intro psych" or "this would be covered in first year psych". 😛 Now you'll be aware of this everytime you go to say it. But your comeback to this is something about burning the brain cells that stored that memory. My comeback is something like you will remember but pretend not to and then curse me as you delete subsequent portions of your posts that contain the same information. (See, 3 replies taken care of in one post. Efficiency!)
3. You're way off base. That's not the direction I was intending my comment about pragmatism, at all.
4. I'm not very serious about this conversation at all. It just seems that a person that hates their living conditions, when presented with a way to partially escape them while getting paid, would take the pay. It seems more likely that they are not aware of the opportunity or if they are aware, it has not be adequately presented to either the children or the caretakers/parents.
4.1 Yes, I am aware of familial social pressures keeping people in static SES: the man is always bringing me down, bro!
To be honest, we probably don't even need to discuss this without knowing the entirety of the other's position. 😬
Originally posted by dadudemon
2. When someone disagrees with you, you like to top off your disagreements with "this is intro psych" or "this would be covered in first year psych". 😛 Now you'll be aware of this everytime you go to say it. But your comeback to this is something about burning the brain cells that stored that memory. My comeback is something like you will remember but pretend not to and then curse me as you delete subsequent portions of your posts that contain the same information. (See, 3 replies taken care of in one post. Efficiency!)
I'm well aware I say that frequently, it is meant to say "this is so well established that in many ways it is a foundational series of findings that are required to understand core concepts within the science", not as a put down.
Originally posted by dadudemon
4. I'm not very serious about this conversation at all. It just seems that a person that hates their living conditions, when presented with a way to partially escape them while getting paid, would take the pay. It seems more likely that they are not aware of the opportunity or if they are aware, it has not be adequately presented to either the children or the caretakers/parents.
or, as I pointed out, money being poor at incentivizing people to get an education might be a good reason for why offering people money to go to school might not incentivize them to do so
but I can see how that is an irrelevant finding to what we are talking about
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm well aware I say that frequently, it is meant to say "this is so well established that in many ways it is a foundational series of findings that are required to understand core concepts within the science", not as a put down.
But, wait, #1.
But you do admit that you're using it as an argument tool or a persuasion, tool, right?
Originally posted by inimalist
or, as I pointed out, money being poor at incentivizing people to get an education might be a good reason for why offering people money to go to school might not incentivize them to do sobut I can see how that is an irrelevant finding to what we are talking about
I see this is a conflation again.
This is not "pay a person to get an education", this is, "pay a person to escape a shitty situation and an education sweetens the deal".
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What does any of this have to do with homeless bums on the street asking you for money?
Yes, how dare we talk about those who are being incentivized out of abject poverty. It's almost as if we are talking about the panhandlers in their primordial states. Getting to the core problems of discussions is for bitches, right? uhuh