The welfare trait by Adam Perkins
- Thread starter alcopop
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Fuck off
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
The welfare state has a problem: each generation living under its protection has lower work motivation than the previous one.
If this is genuinely the book's argument, then it's starting from an inaccurate and insulting premise. Free access to education and health care, provision of affordable housing, income protection and access to the law (including employment law) doesn't make people lazy. It does increase working class confidence and capacity; and that's the problem...for capital.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Last edited:
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
glowing review over at those wanks the adam smith institute. Think I'll take a pass on this crap
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
But lack of work, de-industrialisation, low pay/no job security and the resultant fall out has had the opposite impact on morale and confidence. And that's a problem for us.
Lurdan
old wave
Here's the "interesting" article in The Times by Jenni Russell.
All sounds very entertaining. I looked around for a copy of the book to steal but no luck so far. Until one turns up I guess I'll have to concentrate on my day job as a piece of pollution in the body politic.
Let’s think the unthinkable on the welfare trap
Jenni Russell
Last updated at 12:01AM, March 3 2016
An academic brave enough to challenge the taboos about benefits dependency should be listened to, not silenced
Last month the London School of Economics called off a lecture on the effects of the welfare state because they were afraid angry campaigners were planning to disrupt it. Dr Adam Perkins, a lecturer in the neurobiology of personality at King’s College London, intended to argue that the welfare state is unwittingly increasing the proportion of work-resistant people in the country. It does so by paying for those who already have those tendencies to have more children than working families can afford.
Perkins’ argument, set out in his book, The Welfare Trait, is that unemployed people tend, through a mixture of genetics and upbringing, to be more aggressive, antisocial and rule-breaking than the general population. The antisocial ones in turn produce children whose personalities are likely to be damaged by growing up with chaotic, irresponsible parents. With an average of 2.5 children in workless households, compared to 1.5 in working ones, he thinks the welfare state has become a production line for personality traits that reduce the motivation to work.
The response to Perkins’ thesis on social media has been savage. He has been told his argument is poisonous unscientific garbage, and that his critics won’t debate with him because, as one put it, “I don’t argue racism with the KKK.” The LSE pulled his lecture when they gathered from Twitter that some groups planned to mount a protest. They now say it could be rescheduled at a later date.
The cancellation of one event has much wider ramifications, though. Any other institution that considered inviting him to speak will probably avoid him now. Nor has his book been reviewed in scientific journals or the national press. Other academics, wary of being linked to controversy, don’t want to enter the debate. Yet as Perkins points out, if his critics believe that his ideas and evidence are wrong, the best way to prove it is to engage with him. To howl him down simply because his thesis makes some people uncomfortable is indefensible.
The response is all the more wearisome because Perkins is no right-wing ideologue. He is a defender and user of the welfare state, a man who spent several years drifting in and out of unskilled work before embarking on a scientific career (“I got fired often,” he writes). His aim is simple: he wants the welfare system to support the unemployed without unwittingly reducing the incentives to work. His professional interest is how personality is shaped and how it affects our chances of a satisfying life.
He cites numerous studies to show that people with antisocial, aggressive and rule-breaking characteristics are over-represented among the unemployed. At one level that seems like common sense: why wouldn’t people who are less suited to work be less likely to have any? A left-wing analysis would argue that these tendencies are caused by external factors such as tough lives and a lack of opportunities. But Perkins demonstrates that they are apparent in childhood. Children who are less conscientious and agreeable than the norm are much more likely to become unemployed adults, regardless of class or intelligence.
Drawing on research into the effect of genes on personality, he shows that 16 per cent of children are inherently hard to socialise. If they are to be prevented from growing up as rebels, he believes they need particularly careful parenting, whatever their social class. Another 16 per cent are so naturally co-operative that they will be solid citizens no matter what their upbringing. The 68 per cent in between are easily swayed by their environment, flourishing in the right context but liable to be damaged by bad parenting in another.
It’s unfortunate for everyone, particularly those affected, if antisocial people have a greater chance of giving birth to inherently antisocial children. But if he’s right, and they also have a damaging impact on children who could go either way, it has major consequences for welfare policy. The Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman has shown that if habits of concentration, consideration and organisation are not established in early childhood, a gulf opens up in ability and character that can never be fully overcome. As they grow up, antisocial children have worse health, poorer relationships, longer criminal records and earlier deaths than their peers.
Without intending to, the welfare state, set up to redress disadvantage, has created more of it by giving such parents the opportunity and incentive to produce children ill-equipped for a fulfilling life.
His prescription is that we either address this problem by investing huge sums in character education from toddlerhood for the most disadvantaged, or that we discourage reckless reproduction by removing the state subsidy for more than the average number of children, since there’s evidence that reproduction is influenced by benefit levels. In the current economic climate no one is prepared to try the first but the chancellor, by restricting housing benefits and tax credits to two children from next April, is about to try the second.
Perkins is far from being a racist or a eugenicist, as his more ludicrous critics have claimed. He wants the welfare state to do what it was intended to do: redress disadvantage in society rather than add to it.
I am no scientist. But I spent two years on a government panel reading hundreds of reviews into the deaths and injuries of neglected children. I was left reeling in despair at the catastrophic and confused lives of so many of our poorest children, most from workless households, left at the mercy of inadequate, self-centred parents by a system that can’t grasp the scale of the problem. Perkins is at least daring to think the unthinkable, pointing out that good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good outcomes. He has been brave enough to raise the question of whether this situation is what anybody — society, parents or miserable children — could actually want. Since the answer is clearly no, his critics must challenge his arguments rather than seek to silence him.
Jenni Russell
Last updated at 12:01AM, March 3 2016
An academic brave enough to challenge the taboos about benefits dependency should be listened to, not silenced
Last month the London School of Economics called off a lecture on the effects of the welfare state because they were afraid angry campaigners were planning to disrupt it. Dr Adam Perkins, a lecturer in the neurobiology of personality at King’s College London, intended to argue that the welfare state is unwittingly increasing the proportion of work-resistant people in the country. It does so by paying for those who already have those tendencies to have more children than working families can afford.
Perkins’ argument, set out in his book, The Welfare Trait, is that unemployed people tend, through a mixture of genetics and upbringing, to be more aggressive, antisocial and rule-breaking than the general population. The antisocial ones in turn produce children whose personalities are likely to be damaged by growing up with chaotic, irresponsible parents. With an average of 2.5 children in workless households, compared to 1.5 in working ones, he thinks the welfare state has become a production line for personality traits that reduce the motivation to work.
The response to Perkins’ thesis on social media has been savage. He has been told his argument is poisonous unscientific garbage, and that his critics won’t debate with him because, as one put it, “I don’t argue racism with the KKK.” The LSE pulled his lecture when they gathered from Twitter that some groups planned to mount a protest. They now say it could be rescheduled at a later date.
The cancellation of one event has much wider ramifications, though. Any other institution that considered inviting him to speak will probably avoid him now. Nor has his book been reviewed in scientific journals or the national press. Other academics, wary of being linked to controversy, don’t want to enter the debate. Yet as Perkins points out, if his critics believe that his ideas and evidence are wrong, the best way to prove it is to engage with him. To howl him down simply because his thesis makes some people uncomfortable is indefensible.
The response is all the more wearisome because Perkins is no right-wing ideologue. He is a defender and user of the welfare state, a man who spent several years drifting in and out of unskilled work before embarking on a scientific career (“I got fired often,” he writes). His aim is simple: he wants the welfare system to support the unemployed without unwittingly reducing the incentives to work. His professional interest is how personality is shaped and how it affects our chances of a satisfying life.
He cites numerous studies to show that people with antisocial, aggressive and rule-breaking characteristics are over-represented among the unemployed. At one level that seems like common sense: why wouldn’t people who are less suited to work be less likely to have any? A left-wing analysis would argue that these tendencies are caused by external factors such as tough lives and a lack of opportunities. But Perkins demonstrates that they are apparent in childhood. Children who are less conscientious and agreeable than the norm are much more likely to become unemployed adults, regardless of class or intelligence.
Drawing on research into the effect of genes on personality, he shows that 16 per cent of children are inherently hard to socialise. If they are to be prevented from growing up as rebels, he believes they need particularly careful parenting, whatever their social class. Another 16 per cent are so naturally co-operative that they will be solid citizens no matter what their upbringing. The 68 per cent in between are easily swayed by their environment, flourishing in the right context but liable to be damaged by bad parenting in another.
It’s unfortunate for everyone, particularly those affected, if antisocial people have a greater chance of giving birth to inherently antisocial children. But if he’s right, and they also have a damaging impact on children who could go either way, it has major consequences for welfare policy. The Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman has shown that if habits of concentration, consideration and organisation are not established in early childhood, a gulf opens up in ability and character that can never be fully overcome. As they grow up, antisocial children have worse health, poorer relationships, longer criminal records and earlier deaths than their peers.
Without intending to, the welfare state, set up to redress disadvantage, has created more of it by giving such parents the opportunity and incentive to produce children ill-equipped for a fulfilling life.
His prescription is that we either address this problem by investing huge sums in character education from toddlerhood for the most disadvantaged, or that we discourage reckless reproduction by removing the state subsidy for more than the average number of children, since there’s evidence that reproduction is influenced by benefit levels. In the current economic climate no one is prepared to try the first but the chancellor, by restricting housing benefits and tax credits to two children from next April, is about to try the second.
Perkins is far from being a racist or a eugenicist, as his more ludicrous critics have claimed. He wants the welfare state to do what it was intended to do: redress disadvantage in society rather than add to it.
I am no scientist. But I spent two years on a government panel reading hundreds of reviews into the deaths and injuries of neglected children. I was left reeling in despair at the catastrophic and confused lives of so many of our poorest children, most from workless households, left at the mercy of inadequate, self-centred parents by a system that can’t grasp the scale of the problem. Perkins is at least daring to think the unthinkable, pointing out that good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good outcomes. He has been brave enough to raise the question of whether this situation is what anybody — society, parents or miserable children — could actually want. Since the answer is clearly no, his critics must challenge his arguments rather than seek to silence him.
All sounds very entertaining. I looked around for a copy of the book to steal but no luck so far. Until one turns up I guess I'll have to concentrate on my day job as a piece of pollution in the body politic.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yes. It's a parade of unoriginal, credulous cliches, nailed together with the usual pathetic victim complex from which right-wing journalists usually seem to suffer.
Lucy Fur
Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts on it?
Cid
Proper break this time
Here's the "interesting" article in The Times by Jenni Russell.
Let’s think the unthinkable on the welfare trap
Jenni Russell
Last updated at 12:01AM, March 3 2016
An academic brave enough to challenge the taboos about benefits dependency should be listened to, not silenced
Last month the London School of Economics called off a lecture on the effects of the welfare state because they were afraid angry campaigners were planning to disrupt it. Dr Adam Perkins, a lecturer in the neurobiology of personality at King’s College London, intended to argue that the welfare state is unwittingly increasing the proportion of work-resistant people in the country. It does so by paying for those who already have those tendencies to have more children than working families can afford.
Perkins’ argument, set out in his book, The Welfare Trait, is that unemployed people tend, through a mixture of genetics and upbringing, to be more aggressive, antisocial and rule-breaking than the general population. The antisocial ones in turn produce children whose personalities are likely to be damaged by growing up with chaotic, irresponsible parents. With an average of 2.5 children in workless households, compared to 1.5 in working ones, he thinks the welfare state has become a production line for personality traits that reduce the motivation to work.
The response to Perkins’ thesis on social media has been savage. He has been told his argument is poisonous unscientific garbage, and that his critics won’t debate with him because, as one put it, “I don’t argue racism with the KKK.” The LSE pulled his lecture when they gathered from Twitter that some groups planned to mount a protest. They now say it could be rescheduled at a later date.
The cancellation of one event has much wider ramifications, though. Any other institution that considered inviting him to speak will probably avoid him now. Nor has his book been reviewed in scientific journals or the national press. Other academics, wary of being linked to controversy, don’t want to enter the debate. Yet as Perkins points out, if his critics believe that his ideas and evidence are wrong, the best way to prove it is to engage with him. To howl him down simply because his thesis makes some people uncomfortable is indefensible.
The response is all the more wearisome because Perkins is no right-wing ideologue. He is a defender and user of the welfare state, a man who spent several years drifting in and out of unskilled work before embarking on a scientific career (“I got fired often,” he writes). His aim is simple: he wants the welfare system to support the unemployed without unwittingly reducing the incentives to work. His professional interest is how personality is shaped and how it affects our chances of a satisfying life.
He cites numerous studies to show that people with antisocial, aggressive and rule-breaking characteristics are over-represented among the unemployed. At one level that seems like common sense: why wouldn’t people who are less suited to work be less likely to have any? A left-wing analysis would argue that these tendencies are caused by external factors such as tough lives and a lack of opportunities. But Perkins demonstrates that they are apparent in childhood. Children who are less conscientious and agreeable than the norm are much more likely to become unemployed adults, regardless of class or intelligence.
Drawing on research into the effect of genes on personality, he shows that 16 per cent of children are inherently hard to socialise. If they are to be prevented from growing up as rebels, he believes they need particularly careful parenting, whatever their social class. Another 16 per cent are so naturally co-operative that they will be solid citizens no matter what their upbringing. The 68 per cent in between are easily swayed by their environment, flourishing in the right context but liable to be damaged by bad parenting in another.
It’s unfortunate for everyone, particularly those affected, if antisocial people have a greater chance of giving birth to inherently antisocial children. But if he’s right, and they also have a damaging impact on children who could go either way, it has major consequences for welfare policy. The Nobel prize-winning economist James Heckman has shown that if habits of concentration, consideration and organisation are not established in early childhood, a gulf opens up in ability and character that can never be fully overcome. As they grow up, antisocial children have worse health, poorer relationships, longer criminal records and earlier deaths than their peers.
Without intending to, the welfare state, set up to redress disadvantage, has created more of it by giving such parents the opportunity and incentive to produce children ill-equipped for a fulfilling life.
His prescription is that we either address this problem by investing huge sums in character education from toddlerhood for the most disadvantaged, or that we discourage reckless reproduction by removing the state subsidy for more than the average number of children, since there’s evidence that reproduction is influenced by benefit levels. In the current economic climate no one is prepared to try the first but the chancellor, by restricting housing benefits and tax credits to two children from next April, is about to try the second.
Perkins is far from being a racist or a eugenicist, as his more ludicrous critics have claimed. He wants the welfare state to do what it was intended to do: redress disadvantage in society rather than add to it.
I am no scientist. But I spent two years on a government panel reading hundreds of reviews into the deaths and injuries of neglected children. I was left reeling in despair at the catastrophic and confused lives of so many of our poorest children, most from workless households, left at the mercy of inadequate, self-centred parents by a system that can’t grasp the scale of the problem. Perkins is at least daring to think the unthinkable, pointing out that good intentions don’t necessarily lead to good outcomes. He has been brave enough to raise the question of whether this situation is what anybody — society, parents or miserable children — could actually want. Since the answer is clearly no, his critics must challenge his arguments rather than seek to silence him.
All sounds very entertaining. I looked around for a copy of the book to steal but no luck so far. Until one turns up I guess I'll have to concentrate on my day job as a piece of pollution in the body politic.
All sounds like the biggest load of horse shit since eugenics.
I haven't read it. So I do not have any thoughts.
How can you know it's 'interesting' (it isn't) if you haven't read it?
Lucy Fur
Well-Known Member
Brilliant, so you are, as is oft the case, without knowledge or thought.
I read the article, haven't read the book
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, outline what you found interesting in the article and why - and then try and place that within your wider perspective. As if we can't guess what that might be. Otherwise, great thread.
I was wondering if anyone had read the book.
I had not heard of it before
I had not heard of Perkins before
I was wondering if anyone else had.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Right. No agenda. Nothing. Nothing that your previous posts and positions on here would indicate at all.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
But please, do tell us what you found interesting in the article and why.
Lucy Fur
Well-Known Member
So you've not read the book, never heard of the author, have no thoughts on the matter, and yet you found it interesting enough to begin a thread on it.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
That's the bit that got me; if the premise was true there would be a heap of families on consistent welfare for a series of generations.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
In lieu of an answer from the OP, maybe it's interesting because such upfront eugenics pieces usually get a harsher reception in the mainstream media.
Yeah, that would be it...
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the adam smith institute review starts out on the theme that its not been widely aired because a hate mob etc. See how many paragraphs you can do without closing the tab down in revulsion. I got four I think
trabuquera
Modesty Bag
I'm made of stronger stuff and waded through the entire puddle of mire. More of the Not Even Wrong school of sociology reported on by a journo who doesn't understand any sort of science or logic either. Glaringly obvious and vicious anti-poors agenda, no matter how many times they wring hands and say "but we're trying to HELP people". Move along, nothing to see here.
Have you read the book?
Similar threads
