But if the nature of it is as a construct of the actions of the individuals then what Thatcher was saying is not objectively wrong. Especially when you read the entire article rather than just focus on "There is no such thing as society".
But actions of the individual with no thought of the consequence of society are likely to create more people who are need of assistance & require intervention from said groups.
But the results of trials and tests of behaviourism seem to suggest that it only works for a few base attributes and isn't all that useful for anything complex. Sure you can get dogs to salivate but you do much better with constructivist learning theory when teaching anything remotely complex. That said an awful lot of learning theory in general is pretty poor science and not heavily backed up by evidence either way. Obviously I will be leaving that bit out of my dissertation...
I'm not suggesting we should use behaviourism as a guiding principle, but accept the fact we are animals - who's actions & behaviours are mostly predictable.
There is a significant difference though in that constructivist ideas give you more scope for individuals making different decisions.
I'm not saying constructivism has nothing to offer, but we need to accept certain biological predispositions to behave certain ways.
I am not entirely sure the last part is true, familial engagement (possibly the most important part of education), whilst correlated with income, doesn't seem to be directly causal. It has been shown time and again that income poor children with parents that are engaged in their child's education can make a significant difference.
I agree, the engagement of parents is key - but do you think financial related stress on parents is likely to statistically increase the probability of familial engagement or decrease it?.
The negative effects of poor self esteem are well documented & living in squalor with no disposable income is unlikely to improve the parental ability of anybody.
I am struggling to see the relevance of this comment as at no point have I argued for greater income inequality.
No you have not, but I'm not arguing against you - I'm arguing against right with ideology, an ideology which doesn't rate decreasing income inequality very highly on the list of things to do.
The point is that all the evidence points towards income equality being in itself a negative attribute for personal development (on average here, not in all cases of course).
"truth value" or in other words the "likelihood" of it being true and not if it is actually true.
I jest! Not knowing exactly what you do I could in no way say how it relates to social science statistics (and there reliability).
Well you are right, it's within scales of probability, it's hard to know many things for certain - but data can indicate enough for us to create a predictive model (which we can then test on samples to determine if it works).
While it may not be 100%, by using the rules & logic created in predictive modelling using neural networks, CHAID, linear/logistic regression models it's possible to ratify any findings made by determining the uplift.
(IE
By picking at random we can identify 20% of people who will do X.
By using our models we can identify 70% of people who will do X (then put in place methods to prevent/solve the problem)
Obviously followed by validation, testing & refinements in the logic - all tested using control groups & following the standard scientific method of problem solving.
It was a short hand description rather than a fully nuanced view on your political views which would require more than a few forum posts...
Fair enough.
Not really sure on the relevance tbh, I have long advocated a rehabilitation based justice system.
You are (as you have seen the evidence I assume) but the political right in the UK are not.
A clear cut case of ideology over data/facts.
The problem I have is that pretty much every time we have tried to use the state as the function of enforcing equality of opportunity it has ended pretty badly. I would rather live in a neo-liberal social democracy that typifies the Western developed nations than pretty much any other culture so far tried.
I am not entirely sure you can so easily divorce personal freedoms from economic freedoms as every attempt to improve the former by restricting the latter have ended up restricting both.
In total honesty I don't see the connection - more-so when the only economically liberal party in the UK is actually opposed to personal liberty (against gay marriage & such).
I do agree historically they have ended badly, but that's because most entities have dangled equality as a carrot to the population to garner power & never actually given what was promised.
The over-arching point is much of conservative ideology isn't supported by evidence, be that their stance on crime, or methods of reducing welfare dependence.
If we can agree on goals, let the evidence decide on the methodology of achieving them - if I was presented with compelling evidence in favour of some right wing ideological changes I'd be more than happy to switch to whichever side is better backed by evidence.
