[lmaximus1983]

Sorry welfare dependence does cause crime.

Almost all of my step family on the Isle of Wight (this in the UK) are doing this along with most of their friends.

I know what I saw with my own eyes. I know what some women have said "I can get X amount if I have another kid". I also know that almost all of my step brothers and step sisters abuse the welfare system mainly by having children with other people.

Telling me that it doesn't happen, when I know it blatantly does and then telling me it doesn't because of some academic release that for all we know probably hasn't been peer reviewer properly. A slight aside ... some dudes managed to get Mein Karph through peer review recently by changing the wording slightly.

Also guess the arrest rate for my step family? The first day I met them they got arrested. Every-time I hear something about them one of them or their mates or both have got arrested.

You know what the connecting thing is ... they are all on welfare and their parents were drunks and lived off of welfare on the Island because there are no jobs.

[SolaceQuantum]

The poster above was respectful that they would not comment on your experiences, merely that a single persons experiences does not defy statistical data results. To argue further with more personal experiences does not adequately address the concern...

[lmaximus1983]

LOL. This is the problem with you guys. I don't care if he is respectful

Sometimes what is right in front of your face is true. That is why stereotypes exist.

No one has addressed the point I made. Just saying it in anecdotal when I have observed it in a number of instances by myself is incorrect. I am not saying it is one personal experience. I am saying it is a pattern I have seen 5 or 6 times myself and I have seen it as a recurring theme in news etc.

BTW I have been programming computers for 15 years. There are these things called Heuristics. They are based on experience. I am sure a lot of people would be will to agree with a lot of programming Heuristics ... but when it comes to something else ... it must be much higher bar all of a sudden.

[ALittleLight]

"Anecdotal" doesn't mean "happened once" or even "wrong". Anecdotal means that's it's a relation of personal experiences filtered through memory. That's fine.

Evidence that meets scientific or academic standards is different than anecdote. Such data is gathered in a way that tries to minimize biases, and analyzed in a way that tries to account for random chance, and then presented with quantitative precision.

For example, suppose I saw an article saying that men are typically taller than women. "Nope" I reply. "My sister is taller than I am. My cousin is taller than her brother, my aunt is taller than my dad." That may so be true, but it doesn't refute the general claim that is backed by real data.

There's nothing wrong with telling about your personal circumstances. There is something wrong with imagining that your personal circumstances invalidate or even compare to real research.

You suggested that you are familiar with heuristics. To put things in those terms - the heuristic of using anecdotes and stereotypes may well produce better results for life's decisions than random chance would. Using real research and analysis to inform decisions is likely a better heuristic than anecdotes and prejudices though.

[ambicapter]

> No one has addressed the point I made.

They have.

> Just saying it in anecdotal

That's your point being addressed.

> when I have observed it in a number of instances by myself is incorrect.

That's the definition of anecdotal.

> I am not saying it is one personal experience. I am saying it is a pattern I have seen 5 or 6 times myself

Its not just personal experience, its an experience you've experienced personally?

> and I have seen it as a recurring theme in news

Do I really need to address the bias of the news toward eye-catching headlines rather than sober analysis of real-life trends?

[techsupporter]

The problem with saying that just because you observed it makes it a widespread pattern is that the opposite can also be true at the same time. Which small-scale observation is correct? Just because something is "a recurring theme in news" does not make it a widespread thing. By definition, a thing is "newsworthy" when it is notable and unusual; not something that's commonplace.

And the someone who can come along and ague the opposite is me. Growing up, my family was on every form of welfare our state and the federal government offered. I've eaten more off-brand cereal and helped my mother figure out what's WIC-approved and what isn't over many, many grocery trips. I helped push the car home on more than one occasion when we ran out of gas two days before payday. Yet none of us--neither my two parents nor any of their five children--has a criminal record at all. Not even a parking ticket. Same goes for several of my friends from high school (since we all went to the "poor" high school in the "poor" neighborhood). It was easy to tell which of my friends got some form of social assistance because, until my junior year of high school, the free-school-lunch program cards were green instead of white for paid cards. The worst criminal thing any of my several friends has done is a hot check charge.

On the other hand, I also know several financially successful people through work and organizations I'm a member of. Quite a few of them have a range of minor-to-medium charges and convictions. DUIs, drug possession, credit card fraud, petty theft. Most of them grew up with money yet have a criminal record.

So my assertion is that growing up with money causes crime because everyone I know who was on social assistance is as pure as the driven snow and everyone I know who grew up with money has committed crimes. Heck, my assertion is even backed up by being a recurring theme in news. Just watch CNBC for 10 minutes.

[pgodzin]

Heuristics are good for algorithmic performance, not as good for judging human beings

[oldandtired]

I don't know if you can say "welfare dependence causes crime". What you could say is that there are those who commit crime that take advantage of welfare, that is, they abuse its availability.

I know of those who abuse welfare payments because they are incapable of doing honest work - they would rather rort a system than put in an honest days work. Yet there are many other who cannot get such help when they truly need it. These are the one that fall through the cracks and I have seen some of those turn to criminal activity because they don't see any other way.

Many years ago, I had the "pleasure" of dealing with someone on welfare. They wanted to see our pastor and were wanting to obtain some monies. Ostensibly for putting fuel into their vehicle.

I offered to help and took them back to my place and got a twenty litre jerry can of fuel that I had. I took them and the fuel back to their place and emptied it into their car fuel tank. My observations of them lead me to the conclusion that their financial help request was bogus. They were not enthused that they had received practical help (fuel) instead of currency.

I went to this effort to test them and the veracity of their story. Never saw them again. I shared this with the then pastor and he laughed that I had had the nowse to test the person's story. He had seen that person previously on a number of occasions.

Since then, it has been policy to help people practically by giving the actual things like food, etc, rather than monies. This always results in one of two things, grateful acceptance or ungratefulness.