Human Accomplishment 620
| Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 | |
| author | Charles Murray |
| pages | 688 |
| publisher | HarperCollins |
| rating | Thought-provoking |
| reviewer | Joel Eidsath |
| ISBN | 006019247X |
| summary | A statistical history of human accomplishment. |
For our species' resume, you probably would not list to put "Defeated Hitler" as one of humanity's accomplishments, because it sounds too much like 'Beat my Heroin Addiction.' You would want to include things like 'Painted the Roof of the Sistine Chapel' or 'Discovered General Relativity.' In other words, you would want to include examples of human excellence throughout the ages.
Not only has Murray set out to compile this resume, but he sought to do it for a reason that is at the same time both interesting and audacious: once you have compiled a list of the several thousand most important creators and discoverers of all time, you can stick it into a database. The idea is that with this database a person can spot trends in accomplishment; he can identify regions and cities where excellence has clustered; he can evaluate qualities of political systems that spur innovation and those that stifle it. Murray's book is a stunning profusion of graphs and plots that do much more to teach us about accomplishment that most narrative histories.
For this to work, however, Murray first had to tackle the problem of differing opinions on who exactly deserves a place in the database. Everybody's list would differ -- yours, mine, and Charles Murray's. There would be substantial similarities between our lists, to be sure; nobody is going to leave out Newton, Darwin, Goethe, Shakespeare, Confucius, or al-Mutanabbi. But when it comes to lesser achievements, the arguments would be endless. Does Hooke make it into the list of the top 20 physicists of all time, or does Pascal make it into the list of the top 10 mathematicians?
So what Murray has done is to split up accomplishment into a number of fields and tried to take a neutral measure of each person's respective 'eminence' in the field. He measures 'eminence' by taking a number of comprehensive sources on each field and counting the references to each person and how many paragraphs they get. The sources are from as many different languages as possible and Murray does a good job of avoiding the distorting effects of ethnocentrism. He uses sharp cutoff dates at 800 B.C. and 1950 A.D. to limit the data.
What Murray winds up with is a procedurally neutral measure of human accomplishment that is stable when new sources are added or taken away, and also has good face validity. In Medicine, for example, Pasteur is first with an index score of 100, Koch is third with 90 and Freud (for clinical descriptions of mental illnesses) is 18th with a score of 34.
The Lotka Curve
Murray's other major work made a certain kind of statistical curve a household word, and Human Accomplishment prepares a second candidate for improving public statistical awareness: the Lotka Curve. In the mid-1920s, Alfred Lotka noticed an interesting pattern in scientific journals. About 60% of people publish only one article for a journal. The number of people publishing more that this falls off very fast with the number of articles. This makes up a Lotka curve and is almost L shaped.It turns out that in just about every field of human accomplishment significant figures fall along a Lotka curve. In Western literature, Shakespeare is far out along the horizontal part of the curve, Goethe a bit less so, and a whole host of lesser figures make up the nearly vertical part of the data set.
Dead White Males
Despite using several data collection techniques that wind up exaggerating the influence of non-Western cultures, Murray's data shows a strong majority of Westerners among the significant figures of world history.
Fully 97% of significant figures in the sciences come from the West. The same figure is arrived at from looking only at significant events. Even America is dwarfed by European accomplishment in the sciences, hosting less than 20% of significant figures before 1950 compared to Europe's nearly 80%. Europe's dominance over America is even greater in the arts. And though Murray makes sure to calculate what is an upper limit for artistic accomplishment in non-Western parts of the world, the graph is substantially the same as that for the sciences.
One of the astonishing parts of Murray's data is how it demonstrates the significant effects of legal equality. Jewish achievement after 1850 skyrocketed due to their newfound position before the law. Between 1910 and 1950, Jewish achievement tripled despite even the Third Reich and the Holocaust.
The graph of the achievement of woman displays a different pattern, despite their having gained substantial legal equality in the past century. Though there are slight increases in the numbers, women only represent a few percent of Murray's significant figures after 1900. Nor does the data available for the years beyond 1950 bear out any substantial increase in women's achievement during the second half of the twentieth century. Murray provides several possible explanations. Despite legal equality, women did not gain the same degree of immediate social equality that other groups did. Moreover, the substantially greater demands of parenthood upon women make achievement harder.
Decline
The last section of Human Accomplishment is somewhat surprising. When adjusted for population, Murray's numbers show a decline in accomplishment after 1800. When numbers are used that take not only total population in account, but also urban population and educated population, the decline has brought us down to nearly pre-Renaissance levels. For example, we have 65 playwrights alive today for every one in Elizabethan England. Yet do we have dozens of Shakespeares? The picture is even more stark when the 12,000 members of the screen Writers Guild are taken into account.
As a percentage, the number of significant figures in the sciences compared to the total population has dropped a great deal; this is despite a far greater percentage of working scientists and far more science and technical journals being published.
Murray goes through the data and shows why he believes that the decline is real and is not explicable by any procedural artifacts brought about by his methods. It is a somewhat disturbing conclusion to a great work.
You can purchase Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
very curious indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Right ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The second spin is how he defines "significant."
800 BCE? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think the author would go back to at least 2,000 BCE or even 10,000 and identify the collosal leap made in farming. For a species to go from forraging to agrigulture seems like an enormous effort of overlapping memes (and luck).
Can't wait to read the book.
A nit on the "dead white males" section... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Moreover, the substantially greater demands of parenthood upon women make achievement harder."
The problem is that it's difficult to quantify the contribution of a stay-at-home Mom to her childrens' education, welfare, development, etc. It's very significant; it's just difficult to measure with numbers. "Achievement" means different things to different people.
2 reasons for the West's dominance (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Western dead white males write the history books that most of us read.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:800 BCE? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A nit on the "dead white males" section... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen! This is one thing that has bothered me in today's society. It is assumed that because women do not make money or invent new technologies or lead successful companies that they are somehow inferior. The fact is that men and geared biologically and mentally to strive for what is commonly referred to as "achievement", but nearly every achievement can probably be traced back to the man's mother and her wise care and raising of him. Man affects the present. It is the teaching of the mother in the home that affects the future.
Definition of Trivial (Score:4, Insightful)
The Universe is a big place. It's mostly empty. Does that mean matter is trivial?
I'd suggest that matter is non-trivial, but in the minority when measured by volume occupied. I think we're like that; I think organized matter supporting intelligence is non-trivial, but is certainly in the minority when measured as a percentage of matter in the universe.
Re:Surprising figures! (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there's a classification problem related to the increase in global travel post 1900-ish. Is Einstein American, or European?
As for the decline in achievement post 1800... that's probably because all the low-hanging fruit are gone. The remaining problems tend to be "hard" in some non-trivial sense.
DG
Re:Not anymore (Score:1, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, I am too busy building my career to look for a girlfriend (in any country).
What's the problem with that? I just value my career higher than wasting my finite life looking for sex.
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider, for example, gunpowder. Invented in China, but they only ever used it for fireworks to amuse the aristocrats. In the West, sure it was used as a weapon, but it was also used in mining. Western lateral thinking meant that Western mines were more efficient, which accelerated all forms of technological development.
Or mathematics is another example. Large amounts of it were invented by Arabs, but their religion doesn't permit advanced forms of banking, but when mathematics reached the West it was used for advanced finance, which permitted investment and insurance, which acclerated all forms of technological development.
It's not politically correct to say so, but the West really is a superior culture when it comes to making practical use of theoretical discoveries. Or it was; in the last century the West has spent less of its resources on developing technology and more on supporting those who aren't able to support themselves. Simple natural selection now means that our populations are becoming geared towards those who consume handouts but produce no new discoveries.
Well, since the conclusion of his last book (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there a dozen Shakespeares? Maybe! How would you know? There are dozens of great playwrights in the world today, and dozens of authors, etc. Which are today's Shakespeare? Ask me in three hundred years when can see which authors are still talked about and studied in school. Was Shakespeare hailed as "the Homer of today" at the time? No!
"Significant" figures in science are decreasing? Maybe it's because more science is being done by groups of scientists collaborating. If a dozen papers come out of one university research group, but each has a different author's name on the top, then is that less accomplishment than six papers with one author? I guess the accomplishments of groups of scientists working together isn't significant.
Frankly, I think the absence of "significant" figures is a sign of progress. It shows that our scientific base is widening, so that contributions come from a greater number of individuals. Contrast for example Galileo, one of the only people doing astrological work at the time. Whereas now there are observatories around the world with thousands upon thousands of individuals studying the stars, each making their own contributions.
This book sounds like crap, which I base half on the review and half on my opinion that the Bell Curve was crap. Knowing the way he covers his crap assumptions and the resulting crap conclusions with statistics and charts that seem reasonable at first, I'm seeing heavy potential for the same kind of thing here. Starting with taking whatever statistical feature he's actually looking at and calling it "Achievment", a mirror of taking scores from a military aptitude test and calling that "Intelligence".
But he'll probably get a lot of book sales from people who want to hear about how white folk from the west are the producers of all human achievment.
Re:Interesting - are we declining? (Score:2, Insightful)
Go ask a Korean where science development occured (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask a Korean where all the science development occured, and they will point to Europe. Ask them what they have done to further humanity's knowledge and they might mutter something about a great world vision and system called Confucianism, but not much else.
It is true that recently (like in the past 50 years) Korea has experienced a rennaissance in that only now are their thinkers and artists truly free to express themselves. They understand that at this point, they are by no means pioneers. But soon their society will have "advanced" to a level that will be comparable with the European societies. They look to the West to find examples of great scientists, artists, political leaders (think American Revolution, Economic policy, etc...), in their effort to obtain the great wealth in all areas of life that we experience.
They are even now adjusting their entire education system to become like the Greek
The same holds true for Japan, China, and other Asian countries. It probably holds true for most of Africa, Australia, and even pre-1800's North and South America.
They literally contributed very, very little to humanity while the West was changing the world every 50 years or so. This is not racism, or me being and egotistical white male American, this is solid fact.
If you want to look at true human achievement, look at what the world is becoming. Only now do Asian, African, and other non-European begin to contribute to the arts and the sciences. Only now do you see advances in political and economical thought coming from there as well. This is all due to our natural sharing attitude, where we would rather teach and lift and bring others to our level than maintain our superiority with an iron fist. We understand that we are much more "wealthy" in true human achievemtn when we have two well-educated, intelligent people, than one well-educate and the other mis-educated.
Re:Yeah, Right ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't link to (and destroy) a particular site, but just check this [google.ca] google search out. Also, of great importance was the discovery of 0...
Also, don't forget the great library of Alexandria, and also the Incas and Mayas.
In the end, those cultures are lost, and maybe even their fruits are lost, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Who knows, maybe western civilisation as we know it is about to be extinguished in a hundred years to leave a world for eskimos to flourish in...
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:1, Insightful)
Scientific Method (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole concept of progress, not just looking back to a Golden Age coupled with a purpose of study of the Natural Sciences as it was called.
The Purpose was still framed in Christian ethics of Charity ie Betterment of the life of fellow human beings, but this was enough to "shovel off this religious coil" that has keept man's progress down.
The problem with the rest of the world is that the Coil is still there.
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:1, Insightful)
Giving these PEOPLE a chance is moral and morality is something that makes us human and not just animals.
It's rather sad that you think that the humankind should conform to the "evolution and survival of the fittest". We're well beyond that with all the advances in medicine and the invention of laws. Once we master space colonization and genetical manipulation we'll finally be able to take full control over our own destiny. Survival of the fittest is a relic: evolution crawls towards imperfection.
Decline, or just higher standards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple reason: increased competition leads to decreased fame. If you have dozens of Shakespeares, no single one of them is going to be as famous as if you have just one. Since the measure of success is necessarily some form of popularity contest, you cannot fairly compare Shakespeare's talent to modern talent. It's like saying Perrier is better than tap water when you tasted the former at noon on a hot day in Death Valley and the latter on a cold and rainy October day in Minnesota.
Nor can you say "I saw a Shakespeare play today and a Tom Stoppard play yesterday, and X is better." We have a culture that primes you for Shakespeare starting before Kindergarden, with all of those "Romeo and Juliet" references, among other things. Stoppard, on the other hand, writes for a post-Shakespeare audience, and builds on Shakespeare. You can't isolate one from the other, nor either from its environment.
Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance (Score:4, Insightful)
I too find it peculiar that the author says 97% of anybody comes from the West. I would tend to place a far higher importance on the people who gave the world the foundations of modern science and slightly less importance on the people who explored those tools further. Surely there's a Jewish physicist or two who turned the universe on its ear, but to lump all these medieval Muslim scientists - many of whom had just as much impact (in context) as Einstein - into less than 3% makes me skeptical.
(Not that these Muslims were world famous or well received for their contributions, but place-value number systems and algebra were just as phenomenally world-shattering in the year 1000 as the theory of relativity in 2000.)
Neutral? My Butt!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so! I'll bet the great majority of sources are english and the rest are western european. Guess what? People tend to reference works written in their own native language! This is bias up the wazoo! So much for a neutral measure!
I've only spent about 5 minutes thinking about it, but a slightly less biased (but not neutral) measure would involve counting works translated into multiple languages. The idea being that if a work is worth the effort of importing from another language/culture, then it's more significant than an untranslated work.
The fact that Murray could build this obvious fundamental bias into his metric is laughable. Then to proceed blithely with the whole book pretending his metric is neutral is just absurd. A whole book about measuring science, and it's based on a warped ruler!
Truly, Schiller was right: against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.
Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats easy.
Capitalism and Communism both fail because they measure value in materialistic terms only. When a society is directed by dedicated leaders, value is imposed. Florence doesn't have such beautiful architecture because the free market encouraged it, but because the leaders of the city demanded it. To a capitalist and a communist, ornate architecture is inherently inefficient and serves no real purpose. It isn't necessary for survival, but it feeds the soul. This cannot be quantified by a capitalist accountant, or a banker, or a communist bureaucrat. It is outside their realm of understanding.
When you realize this, it makes perfect sense that culture is destroyed by capitalism and communism.
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what he concluded, now was it. The conclusion of The Bell Curve was that you can find IQ trends amongst races, and if you recall correctly, Asians had the highest rate of geniuses. Murray is White, so where is his bias?
He stated you will find geniuses in ALL races, but you will find higher proportions in certain races.
Just because GWC was a genius does not mean every other Black person will be or can be.
I always find it astounding how people will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs have undeniable traits (Jack Russel Terriers are smart, Bloodhounds have highly sensitive noses, etc.) but then look at humans and refuse to admit any bio-level distinctions might be there. I guess that's why 75+% of the NBA is Black - because Asians and Whites are every bit as athletic, right?
If you ask the question, "Are there really differences between races?" and eliminate "Yes" as a possible answer, you aren't being intellectually honest.
Talisman
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:1, Insightful)
As to "Survival of the fittest is a relic: evolution crawls towards imperfection." The very definition of evolution is the opposite of a "crawl towards imperfection". The "imperfections" are what cause the inferior of the species to die off while the more perfect survive. A crawl towards imperfection is exactly what we are on by giving these people a chance over and over. The only thing we give them a chance to do is fuck, therefore fucking evolution when their imperfection is passed on to another future welfare recipient.
Re:2 reasons for the West's dominance (Score:4, Insightful)
scripsit benzapp:
I don't know if you realize this, but you just about quoted Mussolini there. This is exactly the Fascist critique of socialism and liberal democracy -- they are solely materialistic and therefore soulless.
This is not a flame, by the way -- I in no way am suggesting you would agree with any other fascist ideas.
Out of curiosity, what would your `third path' be? How would your antimaterialist order work? Is it simply traditional conservatism (of the throne-and-altar type), or something different?
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine that this book will be as well. Measuring "achievement" is easy to skew since it is a moving target that you can define to suit your opinion.
If you asked a Chinese scholar a couple of hundred years ago about the meaning of achievement, he would probaly stress cultural and social stability.
If you asked a Sioux in 1750, he'd probaly describe a great buffalo hunt.
Mr. Murray has undoubtably done a great job describing how citizens of Western societies have done a great job of advancing western civilization.
What a revelation! Maybe in his next book he'll statistically analyze swimming and discover that fish are the best swimmers!
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book (Score:5, Insightful)
It was that as a race blacks have lower average intelligence and a much lower chance of producing a geniuses. The Bell Curve for blacks is shifted to the left. So yes, that is pretty much what he concluded: blacks are dumber than other races.
Just because GWC was a genius does not mean every other Black person will be or can be.
What's your point? That applies to everyone. I wasn't saying GWC proves all blacks are geniuses, I was questioning whether Carver was considered "significant" by Murray.
The conclusion of The Bell Curve was that you can find IQ trends amongst races, and if you recall correctly, Asians had the highest rate of geniuses. Murray is White, so where is his bias?
What, because he didn't put Whites at the top of the I.Q. Totem Pole that means he didn't have a bias? That's ridiculous. Particularly if his "bias" was against certain races less than for others. And "Asians are smart" is simply the parallel stereotype to "Blacks are dumb". Neither one was a new idea to the crowd the Bell Curve was written for, he was just providing them "proof".
I always find it astounding how people will readily admit that certain breeds of dogs have undeniable traits (Jack Russel Terriers are smart, Bloodhounds have highly sensitive noses, etc.) but then look at humans and refuse to admit any bio-level distinctions might be there.
I'm not denying the possibility of differences between races -- there are, obviously. I'm denying that his book was anything but overhyped shit designed to appeal to what rich white fucks already thought with sloppy science.
I guess that's why 75+% of the NBA is Black - because Asians and Whites are every bit as athletic, right?
I guess that's why 90+% of the NFL is White - because Asians and Blacks are every bit as athletic, right?
But that's the Bell Curve way, isn't it? Find the metric that tells you what you want to hear, then use that and ignore all other factors.
If you ask the question, "Are there really differences between races?" and eliminate "Yes" as a possible answer, you aren't being intellectually honest.
True. But if you cherry pick your data and measuring methods (one military aptitude test that was never even intended to measure "intelligence", number of paper references, percentage of one race playing a particular sport) to get the answer you have already assumed is true, then that's intellectually dishonest as well.
Born in the west? Good job! (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations on having adopted Western Civilization. You showed great discernment in having been born into it. Very shrewd, indeed. I suppose that's why you're entitled to call yourself better than people stupid enough to be born in the Third World.
Asshat.
What a pompous ass! (Score:5, Insightful)
Koreans were the first to develop printing blocks, water clocks, submarines, etc. Not to mentions the most scientific and graceful written languauge in the world - Hangul.
Koreans are very proud of their scientific and artistic achievements. And you if actually spent ANY time learning about their 4000 years of culture and achievements, then you wouldn't be spewing your little ignorant diatribe.
Koreans are adopting to some (NOT ALL) western culture and methods because that makes them competitive in the modern economic world. And if you really want to nitpick, they are modeling themselves after Japan more than any other western country (yes, Japan modeled much from US, but I would argue they have improved much upon the original).
What a nimcompoop...
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very much like the shark bite statistic: If you want to avoid shark bites, stay out of that 100m region of the the water, that's where they happen. Of course, he's gone a step further than the shark analogy and done this on a per capita basis. To go back to the analogy, it may be that more people are bit within 100m of the shoreline, but this number of attacks represents a very small percentage of the people that were in that region of water (like places where the Latka rate is lower). If you go further out, a smaller number, but a greater percentage, are bit (Latka rate is higher). The data is much more useful now. Going back to the book, on a per capita basis, if you want to engage in these types of accomplishments (i.e., falling on the Latka curve beyond a certain point), your odds are better in the West. This is NOT because westerners are inherently better or smarter. It may be a factor of western culture that promotes these things (Stability, wealth).
I do however have a problem with another portion of his measurements. Using a Latka curve, he will give a high score to people who have been around longer. There have been more books written since Aristotle was alive than there have been since Einstein was alive. Therefore, Aristotle would be more heavily represented in the literature, even though his rate/unit time may be lower due to his huge head start (think the tortise & the hare).
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is that you don't. Nowhere near 30% (approximately 146 out of 365) of your income goes to support people who can't support themselves. Even if you're paying 60% of your income in taxes, which is unlikely, that would assume that half of the taxes you pay go to support such people which simply isn't true. About that much actually is going to "defense," so you could gripe about that wasted money if you're so included though.
Re:Go ask a Korean where science development occur (Score:3, Insightful)
Teach and uplift and bring others to our level? This is certainly not what Europe was doing between the 1500s and 50 years ago. Granted, scientific achievement in the west is superior in my possibly biased opinion. But as for the rest of the world, well it's hard to do research when you're struggling under colonialism. The book review mentions that certain demographics acheived much more when legal equality was gained. A large portion of the world didn't gain legal equality Until the latter half of the 20th century. Thus "Only now do Asian, African, and other non-European begin to contribute to the arts and the sciences"
Re:Surprising figures! (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it: Murray, who wants to see Europe as the center of civilization, would practically HAVE to cut off at 1950. Accepting later data would show that the Americans, Chinese and Japanese have basically eaten Europe's lunch as far as high technology goes, which would undermine the whole worldview his book is trying to support. So, he picks a convenient cut-off point and ignores the most significant fifty years in world history.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice?
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not politically correct to say so, but the West really is a superior culture when it comes to making practical use of theoretical discoveries.
Check out Guns, Germs & Steel [wwnorton.com] which will go a pretty long way to refuting your argument.
Diamond's thesis, in a nutshell, is that there are no better societies, just better geographic locations and various wierd outcomes that derive from these lucky locations.
IMO it deserves more than a Pulitzer - it deserves to be legally mandated required reading.
Re:Rant: Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy. Deal with it. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worse than you suggest. You see, not only is modern Islamic civilization vastly inferior to the West, it is even inferior to ancient Islamic civilization.
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book (Score:2, Insightful)
Pandering to stereotytpes in order to sell books.
Compare the average size of a Great Dane to the average size of a chihuahua. Compare the jaw strength of a pit bull with that of a terrier. The physical differences among dog breeds are way beyond anything in humans. By the way, what gives poodles their distinctive hair? What makes Dobermans so vicious?
Dog analogies are crap, especially analogies between a dog's physical features and a person's mental ability. I don't know of any esteemed scientists who are dogs.
Maybe blacks are more likely to be brought up believing that their only chance is to shoot for the moon in sports. Maybe whites and asians are more likely to pursue success in other fields because they're more likely to believe that their education gives them a chance.
If you assume that the obvious differences are both genetic and significant, based on crap analogies and examples taken out of context, you aren't being intellectually honest.
Re:of course it's racism (Score:3, Insightful)
Non-mediterranean Europe prior to the Roman conquest had few achievements. Europe under feudalism had few achievements. But a cultural shift happened that caused an explosion of scientific, technological, and philosophical achievements. The spark for this probably came from the Middle East with some leavenings from Asia.
Race had nothing to do with it, cultural attitudes did. During most of Chinese civilization, Europe was a barbarian backwater. Instead of pointing fingers at corporate global expansionists, which has nothing much to do with achievement, it would be better to discover which cultural attitudes lead to more scientific, economic, philosophical and literary achievements. Why did Europe never get a Confucious? Why did Korea never get a Newton? Those answers would be highly instructive.
Re:very curious indeed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense. First, the "dole" is an ancient invention; second, while public welfare programs have somewhat increased, private ones have shrunk enormously, so overall there has not been a redirection of resources towards supporting the poor; third, the amount of public funds spent on aid to the poor is very small - spending on education, training, employment, and social services makes up less than 4% of federal spending [gpo.gov]. (Every time you hear someone arguing about how expensive welfare programs are because of the huge amount of spending on "entitlements", that's because they lump Social Security (federally funded pension) in there - hardly honest accounting.)