Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What should we do about Britain's underclass? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribenas)
    I am not ignorant. You have not read what I have written. I have not said "Whilst having parents on benefits is most certainly not related with good educational and interpersonal outcomes in later life" I have said the opposite.

    In addition, there are far more famous cases of individuals who have struggled and their struggles being associated with positive outcomes. For example, Jim Carrey once lived out of a VW camper van and in a tent on his sister's front lawn, Oscar winner Halle Berry once stayed in a homeless shelter in her early 20s,America’s most famous psychologist once lived in a car with his father (Dr.Phil),Daniel Craig, or "James Bond," once had to sleep on park benches in London,Singer Ella Fitzgerald was abused, had Mafia ties, and was homeless before becoming the "Queen of Jazz.",Millionaire Chris Gardner, who inspired the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness," was homeless with a young son while he was in a finance training program, before becoming the greatest magician, Harry Houdini ran away from home at the age of 12 and begged on the streets for coins. I could go on but I am far from ignorant to the fact of how pathetic your last post was and would hate to make you look an more pathetic.
    You suggested that it would be more beneficial for a child to be raised in a family whose parents receive no financial support and struggle, in order to encourage the child to work harder in later life. Did you not say that.

    Therefore you suggested that having parents face extreme financial hardship and struggle is somehow beneficial for the child. Therefore you have completely disregarded the wealth of psychological evidence that strongly relates financial stress and hardship to poor outcomes for the child. On so many levels. But oh your little summary of celebrities who are not in anyway representative of general society surely debunks that wealth of research! It's the classic 'if Alan Sugar can make millions from nothing then why can't we all' argument to justify negative attitudes towards supporting children in poverty. Absolutely ignorant, and the fact that you call me pathetic is clearly hysterical.

    Educate yourself. For the love of God, educate yourself.

    Here is a helping hand:

    Linking financial stress with poor socioemotional adjustment and academic competence in children- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    Financial stress associated with increased parental hostility to the child, which in turn associates with adolescent emotional and behavioural problems (which are in turn associated with poorer academic performance, and lower self esteem, poorer peer relationships, substance abuse etc etc)- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    Higher depression, impulsive and antisocial behaviour are higher in children whose families experienced financial stress http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    More:

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/53/2/185/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...omisedMessage=

    And many, many, many more.

    So, rather than hilariously providing me with examples of celebrities who experienced financial hardships in their lives, which don't get me wrong was entertaining (although not in the intended way), try and provide me with some psychological evidence, that financial hardship somehow promotes child development

    Maybe you can retract your statement about me being pathetic.

    What gets me most, is how people like you who begrudge financial aid to poor families, justify your views by suggesting that the lack of money will somehow be beneficial, or at least less damaging. Stop it. The only reason for your views is because you begrudge them receiving money and would rather the money go elsewhere or to pay less taxes. Do not pretend that it is for any other reason than a self-serving, financially oriented motivation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 16characterlimit)
    :lol: literally I was just going to post that until I saw you had done it already...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    You suggested that it would be more beneficial for a child to be raised in a family whose parents receive no financial support and struggle, in order to encourage the child to work harder in later life. Did you not say that.

    Therefore you suggested that having parents face extreme financial hardship and struggle is somehow beneficial for the child. Therefore you have completely disregarded the wealth of psychological evidence that strongly relates financial stress and hardship to poor outcomes for the child. On so many levels. But oh your little summary of celebrities who are not in anyway representative of general society surely debunks that wealth of research! It's the classic 'if Alan Sugar can make millions from nothing then why can't we all' argument to justify negative attitudes towards supporting children in poverty. Absolutely ignorant, and the fact that you call me pathetic is clearly hysterical.

    Educate yourself. For the love of God, educate yourself.

    Here is a helping hand:

    Linking financial stress with poor socioemotional adjustment and academic competence in children- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    Financial stress associated with increased parental hostility to the child, which in turn associates with adolescent emotional and behavioural problems (which are in turn associated with poorer academic performance, and lower self esteem, poorer peer relationships, substance abuse etc etc)- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    Higher depression, impulsive and antisocial behaviour are higher in children whose families experienced financial stress http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...770.x/abstract

    More:

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/53/2/185/

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...omisedMessage=

    And many, many, many more.

    So, rather than hilariously providing me with examples of celebrities who experienced financial hardships in their lives, which don't get me wrong was entertaining (although not in the intended way), try and provide me with some psychological evidence, that financial hardship somehow promotes child development

    Maybe you can retract your statement about me being pathetic.

    What gets me most, is how people like you who begrudge financial aid to poor families, justify your views by suggesting that the lack of money will somehow be beneficial, or at least less damaging. Stop it. The only reason for your views is because you begrudge them receiving money and would rather the money go elsewhere or to pay less taxes. Do not pretend that it is for any other reason than a self-serving, financially oriented motivation.
    The fact you can call me ignorant I find rather amusing. You think by attaching "many" (three psychological cases) on samples that are irrelavant is evidence then it just shows how incompetent you really are. The studies were done on African/Mexican participants not English, thus making it sample bias. Let's not forget your attempt to make your argument seem stronger by attaching the same study multiple times. But thank you for your input no matter how incorrect it is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribenas)
    The fact you can call me ignorant I find rather amusing. You think by attaching "many" (three psychological cases) on samples that are irrelavant is evidence then it just shows how incompetent you really are. The studies were done on African/Mexican participants not English, thus making it sample bias. Let's not forget your attempt to make your argument seem stronger by attaching the same study multiple times. But thank you for your input no matter how incorrect it is.
    Very weak counter, and you know it. Did you get the term 'sample bias' from your A-level textbook? That is not a valid criticism of a study, lecturers positively cringe when student provide that text book response.
    One of those samples include a Northern European sample. You know there are a wealth of studies out there which support the relation between parental poverty and poorer child outcomes, from all over. It's not exactly ground breaking sweetheart. Like I said, google scholar is your friend, you can easily find it.

    So come back, when you actually have a good counter argument. Otherwise you're just making yourself look more and more foolish.

    Or, and I suspect this is the more desirable option... You can bury your head in the sand, ignore the argument presented to you, so you can stay ignorant in your justification of increasing poverty for already disadvantaged children.


    Edit: I do apologise if I offended you though. This is something I feel very strongly about, and tend to get a bit carried away and forget there's another person on the other side. You are not pathetic, or necessarily ignorant... just misguided All the best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The real solution is to fix their family lives and teach them about morals. If British family life wasn't dying it wouldn't be an issue.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    x
    The answer to what we should do about the British underclass is simple, stop giving them money. I have had many argument with people just like you, individuals who make claims without really supporting what they are saying. For instance, "So come back, when you actually have a good counter argument". Your argument consisted of repeating your last. My comment on sample bias is a rather textbook answer I do admit but that doesn't make it any less true. The case studies presented to me were not done with english participants making the variables in which the hardships occurred different. In Africa the opportunities are substantially less than that of the United Kingdom. We live in a society now if you work hard then you can have luxuries and not have to "underclass".

    I can justify increasing poverty for what you class as "disadvantaged" children. You take away benefits and the children would still have free lunch meals. You take away benefits and they child would still have access to free schooling. You take away benefits and the child would still have access to free medical care. We spend £30 Billion every year on the British underclass, thats £82,191,780 a day. Imagine what we could spend that £30 Billion on! advancing medical research to cure 'incurable' diseases? creating more and cheaper housing? improve the quality of education?. How can you justify letting unfortunate innocent people die of disease that with more investments we could cure.

    Edit: There is no need to apologies, I am strong in my beliefs and as I am correct there is no need to be offended. Please note I believe it would be drastic to remove benefits from families in which the parents have a disability or are unable to work. But (for example) families who try to cheat the system by saying they cannot get a job when they in fact can should have their support cut.

    I apologise in advance if you have taken offence as I know you feel very strongly about this topic. The idyllic view of Britain on benefits you have is nice but sadly false.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribenas)
    The answer to what we should do about the British underclass is simple, stop giving them money. I have had many argument with people just like you, individuals who make claims without really supporting what they are saying. For instance, "So come back, when you actually have a good counter argument". Your argument consisted of repeating your last. My comment on sample bias is a rather textbook answer I do admit but that doesn't make it any less true. The case studies presented to me were not done with english participants making the variables in which the hardships occurred different. In Africa the opportunities are substantially less than that of the United Kingdom. We live in a society now if you work hard then you can have luxuries and not have to "underclass".

    I can justify increasing poverty for what you class as "disadvantaged" children. You take away benefits and the children would still have free lunch meals. You take away benefits and they child would still have access to free schooling. You take away benefits and the child would still have access to free medical care. We spend £30 Billion every year on the British underclass, thats £82,191,780 a day. Imagine what we could spend that £30 Billion on! advancing medical research to cure 'incurable' diseases? creating more and cheaper housing? improve the quality of education?. How can you justify letting unfortunate innocent people die of disease that with more investments we could cure.

    Edit: There is no need to apologies, I am strong in my beliefs and as I am correct there is no need to be offended. Please note I believe it would be drastic to remove benefits from families in which the parents have a disability or are unable to work. But (for example) families who try to cheat the system by saying they cannot get a job when they in fact can should have their support cut.

    I apologise in advance if you have taken offence as I know you feel very strongly about this topic. The idyllic view of Britain on benefits you have is nice but sadly false.

    Right. Do not consider Psychology as a career choice, you will go absolutely nowhere. Like I said, there is a wealth of literature supporting my very obvious, and very unsurprising claim that financial hardship leads to poor outcomes. I find it quite frankly shocking that you continue to ignore that. You must be completely uneducated or misguided in psychology. The literature exists across the globe, Europe, America, South Africa, Latin America, Asia. Majority of it in North America.
    The fact that it occurs across so many countries shows how robust an effect it is, not "sample bias".

    I have been directly taught such research as part of my developmental psychopathology course for my final year of study at a Russel Group uni, taught by researchers who study this in the UK for their living. The fact that you feel capable of refuting such research from high quality institutions with your complete lack of knowledge is astounding.

    You cannot present a strong counter argument. You cannot even seem to grasp one of the most basic and fundamental principles of psychology, that we are a function of genetics and environment. And that an adverse rearing environment leads to adverse consequences unless you are an extremely resilient individual.

    You don't seem to have any understanding on that, and quite frankly that is shocking. I guide you to look into systems theory. But you will most likely ignore it.
    You can't seem to grasp the most simple concept that financial hardship equates to financial stress which equates to less parenting resources for the child, which in turn leads to inadequate support/ poor or inconsistent discipline for the child, which leads to poorer social and academic outcomes for the children.

    This is only one small part of it. The even more direct consequences of financial hardship involve having less resources to provide the child with enriching opportunities, and also lack of self-esteem through social comparison with peer group. There are also consequences in terms of poor children associating with similarly poor peer groups, which in turn perpetuate poor outcomes.


    If you can't understand this most basic principle. Then do us all a favour and turn your back on Psychology, because you are just one of those who can't grasp it. And there's not many, as it is not difficult.

    Finally, you also seem clueless to the fact that deprivation and extreme financial hardship occurs in our country. Which just goes to show how distant you are from the issue. Which again, does not make for a good career in psychology. A hell of a lot of people with mental health issues come from troubled and deprived backgrounds. The fact that you clearly show no shred of empathy/ understanding or even objective awareness of that, certainly does not bode well.

    So you have two options:

    1) Grow the **** up, and open your eyes to the blindingly obvious

    2) Or stay as you are, but have the insight to realise that psychology is not meant for you.


    God I cannot stand people who are so happy to stay in their ignorance. I honestly do not see why you can't simply learn, but there we go. You won't be successful though, but not my problem. To think I actually felt pity for you, I despite the likes of you. You are the dregs of society, not the underclass.

    Edit: Unless I see a nice little respected theory that suggests that parental economic hardship and stress is beneficial for the child, I shan't be replying. But I'm sure that shouldn't be hard for you considering you're so set on the idea?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    - Scrap child benefit
    - Sterilisation as a punishment for drug/violent crime

    If only, eh?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    You know the type I am referring to (easy to spot in any "rough" town): don't work, get up at 2pm everyday, low IQ, anti-social, often mixed up in the criminal justice system, take drugs, have at least three kids without the money to sustain them, etc.

    What should we do about them? Should the state come down hard on them or should we just let them get on with it and pay the benefits, tolerate the anti-social behaviour, etc?
    Are the disabled also in this category?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    x
    1. Congratulations you can read a 'TSR about me' tab :laugh:
    2. In terms of the 'wealth of literature' you're correct but as someone who comes from what is considered a British 'underclass' family without struggle my family would have not have worked as hard to be were they are now which is upper middle
    3. You must be ignorant to the fact that benefits are not working otherwise we would not be spending circa 30 billion every year, even you cannot ignore the fact that if they were working then there would not be benefits because the children would be taking the opportunity to better themselves
    4. Congratulation you're being taught at a Russell group uni, thats Russell with two l's by the way not one :wink: guess I am not the one with the
    'complete lack of knowledge'
    5. Every one of my counter arguments has brought something different. Yours consists of the same paragraph formatting.
    -Same point
    -Case studies
    -Offend me
    -Say my argument is weak
    6. 'adverse rearing environment leads to adverse consequences' SO you agree with me, if the child was taught to work hard then they would be successful and would not need the money.
    7. Less parenting resources? I didn't realise you needed money to be a good parent
    8. You go to the same school as your peers and therefore are given the same opportunity as them it is up to you what you make of it
    9. You would think a russell group psychologist like yourself could understand something as simple as individual difference.

    Congratulations, you have made a fool of yourself once again :bebored:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ribenas)
    1. Congratulations you can read a 'TSR about me' tab :laugh:
    2. In terms of the 'wealth of literature' you're correct but as someone who comes from what is considered a British 'underclass' family without struggle my family would have not have worked as hard to be were they are now which is upper middle
    3. You must be ignorant to the fact that benefits are not working otherwise we would not be spending circa 30 billion every year, even you cannot ignore the fact that if they were working then there would not be benefits because the children would be taking the opportunity to better themselves
    4. Congratulation you're being taught at a Russell group uni, thats Russell with two l's by the way not one :wink: guess I am not the one with the
    'complete lack of knowledge'
    5. Every one of my counter arguments has brought something different. Yours consists of the same paragraph formatting.
    -Same point
    -Case studies
    -Offend me
    -Say my argument is weak
    6. 'adverse rearing environment leads to adverse consequences' SO you agree with me, if the child was taught to work hard then they would be successful and would not need the money.
    7. Less parenting resources? I didn't realise you needed money to be a good parent
    8. You go to the same school as your peers and therefore are given the same opportunity as them it is up to you what you make of it
    9. You would think a russell group psychologist like yourself could understand something as simple as individual difference.

    Congratulations, you have made a fool of yourself once again :bebored:
    I see absolutely nothing of substance here, again. Admittedly I didn't read it, I just scanned quickly for any psychology content, but all I saw were weak insults.

    Come back, with a solid counter argument, or a theory opposing my argument (well not mine). That's how debate works hun. I'll keep repeating the same argument until you refute it.

    I realise that you probably don't have access to those journals I posted earlier, so here is a PDF of one, it's also a British one because you seem to think that every other country constitutes an alien nation.

    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/19461/1/Fam...or_Britain.pdf

    I haven't read it myself, so for all I know it could be weak and provide strength for your stance, so let me know


    The only fool I've made of myself is to reply to cretins such as yourself, but I'm like a dog with a bone, and in need of much procrastination.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Have you ever thought that you wouldn't be so easy to insult if your arguments were correct?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    This reminds me of people on this forum.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Send them down the mines


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Flog all the single mothers red raw and send them back to the workplace pronto, while simultaneously kicking out all the EU ***** serving us our coffee and cleaning our floors.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    perhaps we should just kill them all
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Send them down the mines


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol. On a serious note prior to de industrialisation there was always somewhere for people to go(coal mines, shipyards etc).

    I'm not saying some people aren't to blame due to their lazy attitude but part of the problem is that there was nothing to replace these industries and it sent large areas of the country down the toilet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Give them equality in education standards, and jobs so they can stop falling through the cracks?

    It's so dumb:

    "let's discriminate against blacks and poor white people in the first place, and not help people who need help (which is literally what the government is for). So now they can't do anything and only we mobilise and succeed in society. But then let's get mad when they don't do anything so they can be our justified scapegoats when we discriminate against them for not doing anything, which is exactly what we wanted but now suddenly we want them to mobilise and to succeed. Oh wait, no we don't; we just feel like pointing fingers."

    That is literally the mentality of racists and classists.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    strong username to post content ratio
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.