That's true SWC but thats a very small minority:when people who are in power (and i've been very good and avoided any party bias today) take on a topic they make it sound widespread; attachment disorders are not, they are rather rare. Far, far rarer than under achievement and a ghettoised childhood.
When there are clinical disorders and measurable factors in palce, its a different story; thiscan still be addressed however and IME (broad but not endless) those famillies are still doing their best, but often battling their own demons of one kind or another.
And its right that learned helplessness is another demon, but the key is showing people how to help themselves. At the risk of banging on about mentoring, they key was to show people where to go for info, how to dress for an interview, write a good letter, where childcare could be found, how tolog onto the library PC,or make a healthy meal..... then thy could pass those skillson themselves and you had a trickle down effect
If you give people the tools and they don't put them into place, then you are going to have to look at why*, but its wrong to suddenly turn around and say these are the tools you need- why haven't you got them? The same cycle we are wanting to break with their kids is the one they are probably most likely to be a 'victim' of themselves.
We ahve to be clear who wearemeaning here;I know a lot of people in my life that would see anyone not fitting a narrow phenotype as being included,when actually really this has torelateto people who ahve never workedor never inted to; not the carers, sick,lowe arners working damn hard but still needing a bit of support opr hosuing to help them out- neither those who have workedhard but have taken a bad absh and are rebuilding. It has tobe aimed only at those who really don'tcareand never takeany responsibility forthemselves at all. they arefew but real, and if that can happen then the collaterel damage to other poorer people that I fear is't an issue. You have to be seriously naive to think there are no pooraprents who arenevergoing to enable their kids in any way at all:you have to be equally as daft to think that poverty is a lone indicator of that.
*the asterisk was a note to post a reminder that these societal groups are by default proportionately more likely to contain a larger group of peoplewith low level SN or similar who whilst not functioning at optimum level(and probably never identified formally) aren't there through any reasons of their own making. It stands t oreason that if your skills don't enable you to hold down a job, budget, or relationship for long, then you will end up more vulnerable to extreme poverty and insecurity, but the challenges there are different.