91–100 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe the comment you are replying to is Social Darwinism. As I understand it, that particular view set is actually a belief/value system, while the comment you reply to is merely an observation that assuming variety, there will always be a bottom rung.
The comment directly implies that some people are born predisposed to being poor on a genetic level, which is... absurd isn't even close to the right word.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least a good school does provide the opportunity, from stories I've heard from people who have worked at or attended bad schools it would be an environment where it would be basically impossible to learn anything even if you wanted to. OK, this is just one anecdote, but... I grew up in a fairly rural, poor part of North Carolina, went to generic, poor to below average public schools, came from a dirt-poor family t…
I'm curious what your parents taught you about personal responsibility. My theory is it's less about whether you grow up in poverty as it is about growing up being taught you're a victim, that everything bad in your life is the result of other people hating you or taking what should be yours, etc. If you feel everything that you have or don't have is the result of things other people are giving you or taking from you…
The bottom line is that you can do a lot to better your fortune, and there might be some quite powerful forces working against you. So your life outcome is a combination of your effort, social circumstances and a lot of sheer luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so we get a lognormal distribution where small positive differences (arguably ultimately due to luck; genes, environment, continent, family network etc) combine to give enourmous advantages. That said, regardless of your starting point it pays to try to position yourself to gain as many positive points as you can - with luck you can ride that same multiplicative unfairness to achieve better than linear progress.
Power law (Pareto distribution), not lognormal. But you're partly right. Simulate random exchanges at random prices and the wealth distribution will come out Pareto. However, we cannot conclude that because [a] random exchanges lead to a power-law dist and [b] we observe a power-law in reality, that [c] the real wealth distribution is tantamount to random.
EDIT: google search suggests power law tail - log normal bulk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe the comment you are replying to is Social Darwinism. As I understand it, that particular view set is actually a belief/value system, while the comment you reply to is merely an observation that assuming variety, there will always be a bottom rung.
The comment directly implies that some people are born predisposed to being poor on a genetic level, which is... absurd isn't even close to the right word.
I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in areas with bad high schools could apply to be sent to better high schools. If I remember correctly, admission to the program wasn't merit based, but first-come, first-serve. The study compared the students who got into the program, and the students who applie…
This is part of Freakonomics ( http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden... ). Though you could have obviously seen it elsewhere. In the book, it was referring to lottery based admission to the better schools. The result was that it didn't matter whether the students won the lottery or not. They performed equally well (on whatever generic criteria you use to judge academic performance in hs, most l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Power law (Pareto distribution), not lognormal. But you're partly right. Simulate random exchanges at random prices and the wealth distribution will come out Pareto. However, we cannot conclude that because [a] random exchanges lead to a power-law dist and [b] we observe a power-law in reality, that [c] the real wealth distribution is tantamount to random.
As far as I'm aware the debate of lognormal vs power law distribution on wealth is unsettled. EDIT: google search suggests power law tail - log normal bulk.
But look: http://globalrichlist.com/how.html The bulk is indeed powerlaw.
Maybe you are thinking that a sufficiently winsorised US income distribution is lognormal.
I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in areas with bad high schools could apply to be sent to better high schools. If I remember correctly, admission to the program wasn't merit based, but first-come, first-serve. The study compared the students who got into the program, and the students who applie…
Why is it, then, that despite the school someone goes to not mattering in outcomes once you control for external factors, rich people still disproportionately prefer to send their kids to private schools, and are willing to pay 20-30k per year over a decade to do so? I could totally believe that it's totally irrational on the rich parents' part: kids and health are places where people lose much sense of rationality a…
I remember reading an article at one point about a study done on high school students. I can't remember exact details, but there was a program where students in areas with bad high schools could apply to be sent to better high schools. If I remember correctly, admission to the program wasn't merit based, but first-come, first-serve. The study compared the students who got into the program, and the students who applie…
Why is it, then, that despite the school someone goes to not mattering in outcomes once you control for external factors, rich people still disproportionately prefer to send their kids to private schools, and are willing to pay 20-30k per year over a decade to do so? I could totally believe that it's totally irrational on the rich parents' part: kids and health are places where people lose much sense of rationality a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment directly implies that some people are born predisposed to being poor on a genetic level, which is... absurd isn't even close to the right word.
Gee, I kind of hate to say this, but my expensive genetic disorder is why I am deeply in debt and homeless. It is not due to lack of intelligence, ineptitude, etc. It is simply expensive to treat. So I have difficulty with the idea that our genes in no way impact this outcome. I was STAR student, a national scholarship winner, etc ad nauseum. In fact, I am in financial trouble because I figured out how to get well wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real education is the path out of poverty. It always has been. Real education teaches people to think more effectively. Not everything called "education" fits that requirement. The poor are often subjected to training rather than education, which very often doesn't resolve anything. Training tends to reinforce the social trap they live in. I suggest you not only read the article but also the book it is about. It is o…
Did this project have good results? Have other people successfully replicated those good results running the project themselves? I suspect, like most projects, it didn't meet both of those criteria. However, if it did, I would be extremely interested.
It sounds like it was successful to me.