This should be the tag line for politicians in the UK!
It’s better to be born rich than gifted
101–110 of 202 posts
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. So you really are suggesting that non-poor parents "shouldn't use whatever resources they have." I don't think anyone fun…
Luckily, there are massively diminishing returns to money's effect on educational outcomes and overall happiness, so a dollar taxed from the rich is worth much less to them than to the poor it is given to.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need an IQ of at least 140 probably even 150 to make $10 million (4+ stddev). You see people on the street every day with a 130 IQ, that's your average software engineer right there.
No you don't, where is this supposed to come from? 130 IQ on 15 SD is probably significantly too high as well to be the mean average.
I've lived in the Bay Area since before starting kindergarten. No way the average IQ of software engineers here, or anywhere, is close to 130. Software engineering might be one of the only STEM disciplines that gives credibility to the Ortega hypothesis.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should society be allowed to try to give the poor but genetically gifted children a boost in life? Nobody’s suggesting that parent’s shouldn’t use whatever resources they have. But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. The way you boost smart poor children is by taking money from non-poor parents. So you really are suggesting that non-poor parents "shouldn't use whatever resources they have." I don't think anyone fun…
Luckily, there are massively diminishing returns to money's effect on educational outcomes and overall happiness, so a dollar taxed from the rich is worth much less to them than to the poor it is given to.
That’s probably more due to the fact that the value of an education is less necessary for the wealthy to succeed. Why bother trying when you can be president with a gentleman’s c?
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#105This 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…
> 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)
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I interpret meritocracy as being judged by the outcome of your doings . If someone has IQ 10000 but spends it to dominate WoW, then... I don't see why they should be paid a lot (some other people might disagree, though). Likewise, if someone leverages their genetics, family, wealth, skills, efforts, and luck towards great outcomes (e.g. Elon Musk), then they should be rewarded, as they're meritocratically the best .…
Power doesn't work like that - it accretes to those who are able to leverage it. You generate a permanent power disparity with a gloves off laissez-faire system like that. I'd worry about your definition of "best society". Is the current system an existence proof in your mind?
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I use "best society" it is code for the following argument that gets as long and involved as there is time to explain:
Human instincts and morals are really well calibrated to small-village life. I take things like the Dunbar number [1] to indicate that we are optimised for a small circle of close relationships.
"Fairness" has a sister in "equality" that is very powerful force on the local scale and scales horribly, to the point where equality being scaled up is usually a warning sign of an incoming economic breakdown where everyone starves. Unfortunately, people keep trying to scale equality up because they want it in their local relationships.
Talking about "permanent power disparities" touches on the same vein of thinking - we know that permanent power disparities are an inevitable feature of society. The attempts to set up societies where there are no permanent power disparities have resulted in permanent power disparities forming, and frequently going to very nasty despots. Modern western civilisation has done _extremely_ well compared to the competition by dangling systemic advantage as the reward for massively improving the industrial base and consumer access to resources. This has worked a lot better than attempts to suppress inequality under, eg, the communist systems.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
No you don't, where is this supposed to come from? 130 IQ on 15 SD is probably significantly too high as well to be the mean average.
Mean IQ world-wide (and also in America) is 100. Software engineers here in San Francisco are nowhere close to average intelligence across the US. Data shows differences across professions for IQ, and software engineering lands firmly on the 2 stddev (130 IQ) mark. Remember, populations aren't distributed evenly, and smarter people than average tend to end up in SF Bay. It's difficult to be well-calibrated if you hav…
I'm open to being wrong here, but where can I find a source on this?
I only found this one chart [1], and the mean averages seem to be lower than 130. I have no idea how reliable this is. I can't speak to San Francisco at all, but I can't find the data.
I'd also include "web developer" with software engineer, and everyone with no knowledge of CS theory, just all software developers in my opinion.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is "deep fulfillment" really linked to accomplishments from being gifted, vs social/family/personal accomplishments?
I think everyone has bright spots so that gifted is something you discover about you, and maybe anyone can be so, given enough hypothetical time. Being gifted in such a social context means actually finding and working your gift, the latter of which takes time and explains why most people haven't/aren't.
You're right that the deeper, long-lasting fulfillment is found in community and personal growth, but there's still a distinct feeling that goes together with being really skilled at something and executing well, including social of course.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#109This 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…
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.
Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted
#110So 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.
[1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus...