There is nothing 'pop' or psychological about it: GWest

Wilkinson's argument has clarified through several books: It is psychosocial stress ...

Really?

Umm Sammy boy

This is what you said:
"Still, the book sounds like it is full of ideas and pop-psychology which, for me, is always a fun way to spend an afternoon. ;)"

And that's why I took issue with it.

Are you having memory lapses - the post in question was yours - it's the first one after the article itself.

Cheers

another typical reply to my post by GWest...

rude and without merit.

I simply asked 'really?' in reply to your stating unequivocally that there is 'nothing psychological about it'.

I showed you one passage in the article explicitly mentioning 'psychosocial stress, caused by the feeling of insecurity in the poor' from which I, in part, derived my supposition -- not fact -- as to the type of book it may be.

It might be useful to note that one working definition of pop-psychology is:

"concepts and theories about human mental life and behavior that are purportedly based on psychology and that attain popularity among the general population" or which may "describe professionally-produced psychological knowledge, regarded by most experts as valid and effective, that is intended for use by the general public."

Further, I am not a 'boy' nor is my name 'Sammy' nor am I suffering from 'memory lapses'.

Whatever?

But you did write this:

"Still, the book sounds like it is full of ideas and pop-psychology which, for me, is always a fun way to spend an afternoon. ;)"

Which, from a guy who hasn't 'read' the book isn't very funny. As for not using your 'handle', my apologies for not typing it out in full - I thought you'd be pretty clear who I was talking about.

You used an emoticon - I poked fun at the unusual name you use here at Tyee - it was a joke. Get it?

The disconnect between what you wrote and your comment was unambiguous - I suggested it was a memory lapse, which was, I'd say, pretty gentle given the other possibilities. I ‘know’ you’re not a ‘boy’. ;) (See, you’re not the only one who can use those ‘emoticons’!)

In conclusion, I recommend you read the book and not just a reviews. IT has nothing to do with pop psychology - however defined - which was the original point of contention.

Wilkinson's work is serious analytical scholarship and, it's fairly hard going for the 'general public' - still, I think you could benefit from reading it.

Cheers.

Wilkinson needs to dig deeper

Aside from the obvious benefits one receives from equalities associated with material well-being, the picture Wilkinson paints, in his claim that inequality as a result of psychosocial stress factors (status, social integration and psycho-history) can have serious health and social implications, is actually that the countries with the greatest spread in inequality are the ones where society has succumbed to and relies on judgmental, distortional thinking as a means of avoiding dealing with everyday realities. Folks are being taught to believe the judgments are reality.

An example of judgmental, distortional thinking occurs when folks try to justify behaviour by claiming others are responsible for the way they think and feel. Unless someone is biting, burning, hitting, or kicking you, or a direct threat to your physical well-being they are not responsible for the way you feel; you are.

The fact folks are triggered by these cues, and can respond with violence, tells us the problems associated with inequality go way beyond Wilkinson’s claim that it is a result of the relative spread in inequality.

Wilkinson quotes J. Gilligan who claims, "I have yet to see a serious act of violence [refering to prison inmates] that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this 'loss of face'— no matter how severe the punishment..."

This is an excuse. Shame, humiliation, disrespect, ridicule and loss of face are not feelings they are the product of tho’t processes distortional thinkers use to avoid examining the truth behind the violence. Provocation,by itself, does not justify or explain acts of violent behaviour. The perpetrators of violence rely on a litany of judgmental labels to excuse their actions.

Wilkinson also claims, “A large number of studies have reported that homicide rates are consistently higher in societies where income differences are greater.”

On the surface this looks to be supported by the numbers and we can safely assume a positive relation between income inequality and homicides. But what he doesn’t do is break down homicide rates within societies. If he did he would discover that, in most societies, women, who are still far from gaining income equality, not to mention status, commit a fraction of the homicides. And not only that, even in societies that have the greatest spread in wealth women still outlive most men. So one has to wonder about the connection Wilkinson is trying make between inequality, violence and longevity.

@ KWD...

Can you help me dig deeper? I read "The Impact of Inequality" as pointing out the correlations between relative inequality and a variety of negative connotations for society. The point being that the correlations are statistically valid...
It seems to me that it is the absence of hope or relief that is a great factor in the attitude of those of us at the bottom, not the only factor but a large one. Surely if I believe that I might one day have an income, and even an income sufficient to live on, my thoughts and feelings and day-to-day behaviour may be altered?

GWest, I appreciate your reply

Thanks and thank you for clarifying your intention. I see that my emoticon could have lead you to hear a different voice than the one I thought I was conveying.

VivianLea Doubt

You’re right, the correlations are valid. I’m not overly concerned about statistical correlation, although he does try to sway his argument by excluding variables that don’t fit his thesis. For example, he finds that the occurrence of rape, which is a violent crime, is at odds with his belief that violence is directly linked to relative inequalities in income distribution. Because it doesn’t fit, rape is excluded as violent crime variable. He justifies this omission by claiming, “Rape statistics are notoriously affected by differences in reporting”. Huh? What he isn’t saying is that if we had unbiased reporting we would find that the occurrence of rape is actually much greater than we are lead to believe and that the occurrence of rape has no relationship to relative income inequality.

Further, much of his data comes from stats on men, and mostly men in prison. I see no references to the other half of the population.

As far as the benefits of having an income sufficient to live on are concerned: there’s no doubt that they will find expression in the way we feel and think.

My main beef is with the idea that feelings of pride, dishonour, shame, humiliation and disrespect are the psychosocial factors that determine or promote violent behaviour.

They’re not feelings, they are judgments, but the claim is made, and the thesis is based on the belief that these “feelings” are “crucial to human social relations and may often become issues of life and death.”

Wilkinson makes no attempt to examine and expose the fallacies behind the distortional thinking that arrives at these judgments.

From my take on his argument he believes the criticisms and judgments are real, their meanings are common (the same for everyone), they’re not a product of a life-long conditioning process that determines how we think, and all we have to improve our health, life expectancy and reduce levels of destructive behaviour is to reduce the disparity in the distribution of income.

dictatorship's medicine hard to swallow - some don't

Using Cuba as the primo example of how a dictatorship can have a positive impact on life expectancy is like saying Mussolini made the trains run on time. If Cuban medical care is so great, doesn't seem to slow down the hundreds of thousands of Cubans fleeing that dictatorship by any means possible. Obviously, they feel that the risk of flight means more than cheap hospital beds.

Inequality is the simplest thing in the world to address

Structure the tax system so every dollar of income earned (in whatever way) is a dollar which can be taxed, progressively, to provide the kinds of equality of opportunity which will lead to a more egalitarian society.

This has nothing to do with evolution - and everything to do with a recognition that we are all part of the same human family.