zlacker

The direct result of this thinking is that people who need the accommodation face difficulty in getting it.

You don’t have to return your shopping cart. You don’t have to donate to the collection plate. You don’t have to give a coworker recognition.

But when everyone has an adversarial “get mine” attitude the systems have to be changed. Instead of assuming good intent they have to enforce it. Enforcement is very expensive and very unpleasant. (For example, maybe you need to rent the shopping cart.)

Unfortunately enforcement is a self fulfilling cycle. When people see others cheating they feel they need to cheat just to not be left behind.

You may be from a culture where this is the norm. Reflect on its impact and how we would really like to avoid this.

>>ground+(OP)
> You don’t have to donate to the collection plate

Hey, if they stop using the money I donate to advertise that my neighbors are abominations in the eyes of God they can have my money again.

>>ground+(OP)
The problem is that people simply have no investment in a community anymore. This is a direct consequence of globalization and capitalism. Travel to a foreign land, exploit the locals, and return home. Westerners are just now realizing that they're on the receiving end of it now.

>>shadow+W3
The "collection plate" could just as well mean a panhandler's hat. The point is charitable giving, not christian specifically.

>>ground+(OP)
I think you're reading more into what I said than what I intended.

I'm not endorsing the specific behavior, but I am pointing out that if there's a "cheating" lever anyone can pull to improve their own situation, it will get pulled if people think it's justified.

There's plenty that do get pulled and plenty that don't. In the US, SNAP fraud is sufficiently close to nonexistant that you can't tell the difference in benefits provided. But fraud surrounding lying about medical conditions to get a medical marijuana card is universal and accepted.

The people we're talking about here are teenagers that are told "if you have an ADHD diagnosis you can ask for and get your own room". The sort of systems thinking you are describing is not generally done by your average fresh high school graduate. This is therefore a Stanford problem.

>>margal+Cs
Some levers are accessible to everyone, but the implied social contract is that you only pull it if you actually need it, because the system doesn't have enough resources for everyone to do it.

>>int_19+mY
Yes, I agree.

Trouble is, getting teenagers to accept and live by that isn't something that will pan out. Societies have been trying for millenia.

If your system built for teenagers relies on the social contract in this way, it's a bad system. People who are over a half decade from a fully developed brain aren't going to grasp this.

>>margal+Fh1
Teenagers aren’t getting disability accommodations. Their parents are.

>>ground+wv1
What? The parents of the college students in the article are not the ones being given extra time on tests and being given solo on-campus housing.

What disability accomodations do you think the parents are receiving?

>>margal+HY2
- The parents are getting them FOR their kids. - why are we acting like stanford students are unaccountable teenagers

>>ground+vP3
> The parents are getting them FOR their kids.

That's not mentioned in the article. Is this your personal speculation or do you have something to support that claim? The article seems to make it clear that it is the students themselves getting these accommodations, so your claim is directly contradicting the article we're commenting on.

> why are we acting like stanford students are unaccountable teenagers

Well they're definitionally teenagers, and if you know of a way to make teenagers act en masse accountable to society's values, that would be a novel development in social human history going back to Ancient Greece. So barring that, we should treat the teenagers whose brains have not yet developed enough to grasp society-wide consequences for personal actions as such.