11–20 of 202 posts
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.
Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of a person, nor the highest attainment of success. 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 metri…
born rich (his dad was a provincial minister) poor poor (middle-class, if you think a carpenter is that way, maybe) middle-class rich (born a landed knight) rich (although his father's engineering firm went bust but restarted and did well in the second time and they had money worries at times) about 0.5-5% of people are rich by most definitions humankind does not live by bread alone, but put a human in a box and don'…
https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d23207...
This isn’t going to be popular, but: 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 op…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of a person, nor the highest attainment of success. 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 metri…
This isn’t going to be popular, but: 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 op…
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.