Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost.
For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level (spurring more growth at earlier ages).
The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.
> Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?
Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life?
Nobody’s suggesting that parents shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. The question is what we should do as a society with all the potential we’re wasting. If every dollar we spent on boosting smart poor children yielded two dollars back to the economy, why shouldn’t we do that?
> if the parent is able to provide ... I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level
The argument that those with private wealth helping their children is making society better is the opposite of what is normally called “progressive”. It’s trickle-down economics. When people say “progressive” they are talking about policies that benefit everyone, not policies that say if the rich do well, then surely we’ll all benefit from the margins and leftovers.
> The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brunt “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.
Life is extremely unfair, and very biased toward the rich. It’s not a surprise, we already knew it. This article just highlights some papers that confirm scientifically one of the many ways life is unfair. There might be some nuance, and of course there usually is when the press covers scientific research, but are you suspecting some specific nuance?
It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups.
This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?
> Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?
Like many things in social contract, the answer is - okay to a reasonable degree, but extremes should be discouraged / forbidden.
Some concrete examples: annual limits on gift taxes, inheritance tax beyond a certain estate size etc. Policies which will level the playing field between rich and poor kids:
- very high rate of inheritance tax beyond $1M estate (some reasonable adjustment for inflation)
- no legacy based admissions for any university benefitting from govt money
- funding schools strictly at state level; not allowing local district to fund extra school activities in any way (because that is prone to gaming)
- CA specific: disallowing inheriting tax basis for inherited homes (one of the most stupid aspects of Prop 13 and CA housing policies)
What theories of economics tell us is that favoring one party over the other for reasons that aren't utility or value derived is being inefficient with your allocation of resources, compared to a market only allocates based on how much utility is derived (a free competitive market or globally scoped decision making, I'm not sure if "free market" is even how economists view the market anymore). So the argument is that Nepotism, Nationalism, or anything that favors parties for reasons other than value / merit is seen as inefficient.
To understand this, consider this - if you're bill gates, would you rather live in a society where your just your kids are well educated, smart contributors to making the life of all humanity better, or a society where EVERYONE that has potential is well educated and smart contributors to society. If you have $100 bucks, you'd think - my limited resources is not able to do the latter, even though its better both for me and humanity as a whole to invest in everyone, so let me stick to the former. But a rational actor with infinite resources who cares about their own well being will realize that their society is only as good as everyone in it, and would push for the latter kind of resource distribution.
Of course, your goal doesn't have to be acting efficiently in a global market. It's not morally wrong to act inefficiently (although some would have you think it is).
To me, it's not so much that they shouldn't be allowed to do that - it's just that we need to recognize the advantage it gives.
These statistics should give a person pause when they talk about "bootstraps" or when they hold a Calvinist perspective that a person not being successful somehow "deserved it." It doesn't mean that we need to have some sort of totally even playing field: but it does mean that we shouldn't pretend the field is even - even if the actionable result is just to treat poor and/or unsuccessful people with more empathy and compassion than we might have previously. And perhaps a measurement more of self-examination when we decide (consciously or unconsciously) that we are "better" than others due to our success.
The question is what interest we have when designing our laws and culture in providing opportunities to people born with fewer of them. People who can provide tremendous value are being shut out because of inequality, and I want a talented person who could start a business and create tens of thousand of jobs to have that chance not just out of fairness (like you say) but because it's also good for all of us.
So yeah, people can inherit wealth but it seems obvious there is tons of opportunity to unlock a lot of potential that's being thrown away due to people being blind to the costs of income inequality.
well it's always the conflict between what are our instincts and what we renounce in the name of civilization. The dramatic illustration is just that powerful people can just use violence to get food from other people, it's natural, but we have created laws against it.
Do we want meritocracy because it is an enlightened value or do we want to follow the instinct of having our genes spread as far and wide as possible. That's the kind of societal dialog politics is made for.
Parents who donate a lot of money to a college will expect preferential admissions treatment for their offspring. Colleges certainly know this, and they want the money.
Honestly, I think that the boost provided by money is probably quite small. At a certain level, poverty is going to detract from a young person's ability to succeed, but money very rarely begets success.
What I think is far more likely the case is that parents who succeed in their lives are far better prepared to teach their children how to succeed as well. Further, that they're better at giving them a leg-up in networking and opening doors for them.
The fact that this study cites "academic success" as a measure for determining capability for business success shows that the author himself doesn't really understand how to make big money. Does he really think most entrepreneurs are genius level IQ?
I have a totally different interpretation. This study is evidence pointing towards the extreme failure of the public school system. The purpose of public schools is to provide talented, hard-working people with the tools to succeed. Schools haven't been preparing children for success, they've been largely focused on preparing them for college, and in turn for graduate school. They have not been teaching kids the values and skills which allow them to genuinely get ahead in life.
> Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?
I'm pretty happy to have been brought up poor. I had to figure things out for myself, and if things went wrong, it was my fault. Emerson's "Self Reliance" became my guiding star. To be "indefatigable" is not something easy to teach if you have options for exits.
As Dylan put it, "helpless, like a rich man's son"
It doesn't make me rich; but it certainly doesn't make me think of wealth as the end all, be all, in life.
>Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life?
If society really believed and committed in meritocracy, no. But this is always the trap of meritocracies: people lower ladders for friends and family. And that is what always corrupts meritocracy in a free society.
Of course they should be allowed,the only line I would draw is to not let the boosting cripple your child. You would rob the child perseverance and many life lessons if you don't let him/het fight for their share of the figurative pie.
If people really wanted a level playing field the only solution would be to remove children from their parents at birth and implement a state controled education system from that point to your active life.
But most socialists are ok to take from other to give until it touch their family.
> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college.
Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics.
> And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now.
I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.
Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on the subscription page.
I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews:
1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination .
2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.
Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well.
The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.
I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?
> The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.
I think a valid take away would also be "we should break this relationship such that everyone gets education, regardless of wealth and background".
That seems easier to educate more people than to make more people wealthy.
> maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax
I value education very much. I want to see a significantly higher tax-rate because I think it improves the quality of education for those worse off.
I don't think this article changes my view in the least. Our public school system is disgustingly bad in poor neighbourhoods, and I would argue that no small part of wealthy kids going to college is because their parents put them into better schools, either by living in more affluent areas with better public school systems, or by paying for private school.
I would much rather see higher tax-rates with that money allocated to the public school system to reduce the disparity between the public schools in poor and rich areas.
Reminds me of the original "Ocean's 11" -- after silver-spoon punk Jimmy Foster [Lawford] is done needling his gangster soon-to-be stepdad Duke Santos [Romero], Santos launches in to a story about growing up tough in the streets and how it prepared him to "always fight" [and thereby become wealthy], but at a cost of years and health.
After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better."
Just take a look at Wikipedia.
There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others.
I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is some bootstrap cash.
You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds.
Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.
> Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull (sic) entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others.
The article repeats several times something along the lines of "money trumps genes" at the beginning, but it does mention what you're saying later on when talking about why IQ tests were deceiving:
"Such tests can’t be administered at conception, birth or infancy — before high-income parents have given their young children a head start by feeding them well, reading to them at higher rates and enrolling them in more activities.
“Two people who are genetically similar can have strikingly different IQ test scores because the richer ones have invested more in their kids,” Papageorge said. When you look at the raw genetic potential of the two people, though, “you see they’re actually quite similar.”"
Depends on how 'better' is defined. It looks like they are defining 'better' in this study as 'graduating from college'. That seems like an awfully narrow view of better.
Graduating from college is correlated with better life outcomes in a lot of areas, including income, health[1], and life expectancy[2][3].
The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for "better".
If you're born to wealth but not particularly bright, you might have some any degree and live a lifetime of silenced frustration through easy habits; if you're gifted and poor, you'll struggle and it might take you decades longer but there's still a decent shot at finding deep fulfillment. Gifted talent, pursued, provides a deeper feeling of gratitude in the long run than any means.
Rich always have the advantage of better nutrition, information and resources (if parents don't have time, they hire tutors). Is it truly a genetic advantage or a socio-economic advantage? Is there a good way to hold all other variables as a constant in this study?
Rich parents also are more likely to show their kids how to handle money and get rich. See the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kiyosaki.
Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely puts them at a serious disadvantage.
Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.
For every silver spoon who flies through higher-ed to the gilded cage at the end of the rainbow, there are several more left back home--still living under daddy's shadow--duking it out with the others for a bigger share of the corpse.
Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our souls.
You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born rich might not amount to more than what they were born with.
If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well?
All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.
So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing typical political propaganda using fake science these days?
"Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].
I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go.
Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors and compare the two.
Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure to the right kind of things).
Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all drive success in life).
What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.
How the hell is this study seen in a negative light? Genes, how fast your brain processes information, CANNOT be changed. That's just biology. Money, education, knowledge - these CAN be changed.
[+] [-] dokein|7 years ago|reply
Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost.
For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level (spurring more growth at earlier ages).
The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.
[+] [-] dahart|7 years ago|reply
Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life?
Nobody’s suggesting that parents shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. The question is what we should do as a society with all the potential we’re wasting. If every dollar we spent on boosting smart poor children yielded two dollars back to the economy, why shouldn’t we do that?
> if the parent is able to provide ... I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level
The argument that those with private wealth helping their children is making society better is the opposite of what is normally called “progressive”. It’s trickle-down economics. When people say “progressive” they are talking about policies that benefit everyone, not policies that say if the rich do well, then surely we’ll all benefit from the margins and leftovers.
> The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brunt “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.
Life is extremely unfair, and very biased toward the rich. It’s not a surprise, we already knew it. This article just highlights some papers that confirm scientifically one of the many ways life is unfair. There might be some nuance, and of course there usually is when the press covers scientific research, but are you suspecting some specific nuance?
[+] [-] Qworg|7 years ago|reply
This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?
[+] [-] RestlessMind|7 years ago|reply
Like many things in social contract, the answer is - okay to a reasonable degree, but extremes should be discouraged / forbidden.
Some concrete examples: annual limits on gift taxes, inheritance tax beyond a certain estate size etc. Policies which will level the playing field between rich and poor kids:
- very high rate of inheritance tax beyond $1M estate (some reasonable adjustment for inflation)
- no legacy based admissions for any university benefitting from govt money
- funding schools strictly at state level; not allowing local district to fund extra school activities in any way (because that is prone to gaming)
- CA specific: disallowing inheriting tax basis for inherited homes (one of the most stupid aspects of Prop 13 and CA housing policies)
[+] [-] balt_s|7 years ago|reply
To paraphrase: "the question is not who will let them, but who will stop them?"
[+] [-] spyckie2|7 years ago|reply
To understand this, consider this - if you're bill gates, would you rather live in a society where your just your kids are well educated, smart contributors to making the life of all humanity better, or a society where EVERYONE that has potential is well educated and smart contributors to society. If you have $100 bucks, you'd think - my limited resources is not able to do the latter, even though its better both for me and humanity as a whole to invest in everyone, so let me stick to the former. But a rational actor with infinite resources who cares about their own well being will realize that their society is only as good as everyone in it, and would push for the latter kind of resource distribution.
Of course, your goal doesn't have to be acting efficiently in a global market. It's not morally wrong to act inefficiently (although some would have you think it is).
[+] [-] drngdds|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EdgarVerona|7 years ago|reply
These statistics should give a person pause when they talk about "bootstraps" or when they hold a Calvinist perspective that a person not being successful somehow "deserved it." It doesn't mean that we need to have some sort of totally even playing field: but it does mean that we shouldn't pretend the field is even - even if the actionable result is just to treat poor and/or unsuccessful people with more empathy and compassion than we might have previously. And perhaps a measurement more of self-examination when we decide (consciously or unconsciously) that we are "better" than others due to our success.
[+] [-] elicash|7 years ago|reply
So yeah, people can inherit wealth but it seems obvious there is tons of opportunity to unlock a lot of potential that's being thrown away due to people being blind to the costs of income inequality.
[+] [-] nraynaud|7 years ago|reply
Do we want meritocracy because it is an enlightened value or do we want to follow the instinct of having our genes spread as far and wide as possible. That's the kind of societal dialog politics is made for.
[+] [-] skookumchuck|7 years ago|reply
Parents who donate a lot of money to a college will expect preferential admissions treatment for their offspring. Colleges certainly know this, and they want the money.
[+] [-] khawkins|7 years ago|reply
What I think is far more likely the case is that parents who succeed in their lives are far better prepared to teach their children how to succeed as well. Further, that they're better at giving them a leg-up in networking and opening doors for them.
The fact that this study cites "academic success" as a measure for determining capability for business success shows that the author himself doesn't really understand how to make big money. Does he really think most entrepreneurs are genius level IQ?
I have a totally different interpretation. This study is evidence pointing towards the extreme failure of the public school system. The purpose of public schools is to provide talented, hard-working people with the tools to succeed. Schools haven't been preparing children for success, they've been largely focused on preparing them for college, and in turn for graduate school. They have not been teaching kids the values and skills which allow them to genuinely get ahead in life.
[+] [-] justinator|7 years ago|reply
I'm pretty happy to have been brought up poor. I had to figure things out for myself, and if things went wrong, it was my fault. Emerson's "Self Reliance" became my guiding star. To be "indefatigable" is not something easy to teach if you have options for exits.
As Dylan put it, "helpless, like a rich man's son"
It doesn't make me rich; but it certainly doesn't make me think of wealth as the end all, be all, in life.
[+] [-] cmurf|7 years ago|reply
If society really believed and committed in meritocracy, no. But this is always the trap of meritocracies: people lower ladders for friends and family. And that is what always corrupts meritocracy in a free society.
[+] [-] badrabbit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zouhair|7 years ago|reply
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT2iU9pAI_Y
[+] [-] jeffdavis|7 years ago|reply
* Equal treatment under the law
* Equal treatment by kinda-public things like corporations and universities
* Equivalent opportunities in general
* Equivalent results
[+] [-] jwatte|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arkh|7 years ago|reply
But most socialists are ok to take from other to give until it touch their family.
[+] [-] bko|7 years ago|reply
Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics.
> And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now.
I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.
[+] [-] Rjevski|7 years ago|reply
Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on the subscription page.
[+] [-] 1999|7 years ago|reply
1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination .
2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.
Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well.
The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.
[+] [-] perfunctory|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheDong|7 years ago|reply
I think a valid take away would also be "we should break this relationship such that everyone gets education, regardless of wealth and background".
That seems easier to educate more people than to make more people wealthy.
> maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax
I value education very much. I want to see a significantly higher tax-rate because I think it improves the quality of education for those worse off.
I don't think this article changes my view in the least. Our public school system is disgustingly bad in poor neighbourhoods, and I would argue that no small part of wealthy kids going to college is because their parents put them into better schools, either by living in more affluent areas with better public school systems, or by paying for private school.
I would much rather see higher tax-rates with that money allocated to the public school system to reduce the disparity between the public schools in poor and rich areas.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MisterOctober|7 years ago|reply
After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better."
Santos [incredulous] : "What way is that?"
Foster : "Choose rich parents."
Santos : "Ha! You can bet your boots it is."
[+] [-] kasperni|7 years ago|reply
I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is some bootstrap cash.
You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds.
Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.
[+] [-] asaph|7 years ago|reply
Do you have any data to back this up?
[+] [-] pedrosorio|7 years ago|reply
"Such tests can’t be administered at conception, birth or infancy — before high-income parents have given their young children a head start by feeding them well, reading to them at higher rates and enrolling them in more activities.
“Two people who are genetically similar can have strikingly different IQ test scores because the richer ones have invested more in their kids,” Papageorge said. When you look at the raw genetic potential of the two people, though, “you see they’re actually quite similar.”"
[+] [-] cortesoft|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twblalock|7 years ago|reply
The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for "better".
[1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
[+] [-] goldfeld|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonabinu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skookumchuck|7 years ago|reply
Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely puts them at a serious disadvantage.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|7 years ago|reply
Ghandi.
Joan of Arc.
Jesus of Nazareth.
Dr. Martin Luther King.
William Wallace.
Einstein.
Etc.
Freedom, human dignity, compassion, knowing how to live right. These all tend to fall outside the scope of corporate aspiration.
The article is talking about "success" by essentially a single metric. Humankind does not live by bread alone.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|7 years ago|reply
Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.
[+] [-] jstewartmobile|7 years ago|reply
Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our souls.
[+] [-] badrabbit|7 years ago|reply
If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well?
All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.
[+] [-] lazyjones|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geocar|7 years ago|reply
I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go.
[1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus...
[2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/
[3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] starchild_3001|7 years ago|reply
Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors and compare the two.
Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure to the right kind of things).
Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all drive success in life).
What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] WhitneyLand|7 years ago|reply
Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted, educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages.
It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of people in the latter category.
[+] [-] richard___|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdinsn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimnotgym|7 years ago|reply