Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s better to be born rich than gifted

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#121

Post by tomp »

Qworg wrote: post #62
tomp wrote: post #52

Earlier 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?

"Permanent power disparity", "best society" - that's completely orthogonal to meritocracy. You could implement meritocracy (i.e. most skilled people in temporary position of most power) even in a system that has a "reset" every generation (e.g. by eliminating breeding and growing people Matrix-style). Like markets, meritocracy should be used to "optimize" the outcome towards whatever the society deems beneficial - e.g. these days we consider renewable energy beneficial, so policy is guiding markets to force investment into renewable energy (by taxes etc - despite renewable energy not being competitive on its own) - just a simple example of markets adapting to the values of society.

Yes, the current system (Western-style democracy, capitalism, freedom, markets) is the most meritocratic of all systems realised so far (AFAIK), but that doesn't mean we can't do better still.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#122

Post by bobthechef »

roenxi wrote: post #106
Qworg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see what fairness and equality have to do with one another. Consider a poor person and a rich person. The poor person gives $100 to charity and the rich person gives nothing. They're not economic equals, but which would be more fair? A tax deduction for the poor guy or the rich guy? Extrapolate.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#123

Post by mikeash »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

I don't think the cutoff is artificial. It comes down to conflicts of interest. If you give your friend a ride to the airport, he benefits, you choose to do it, and that’s the end of it. If you hire your friend preferentially, you’re compromising your duty to your superiors to hire the best candidate.

In your example, your CIO friend has a responsibility to the company to make the best acquisition on the best possible terms. If he’s treating you preferentially because you’re friends, he’s not doing that.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#124

Post by whorleater »

drngdds wrote: post #22
skookumchuck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legacy admissions 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.

Obviously, but that's not how it should be because it's ridiculously unfair.

Donating $5 million to get one kid into an university allows a new lab to be built. Or more scholarships to be offered for lower income students. Or better quality of life overall for the students on the campus. It feels slimy and unfair in that someone can just buy their way into college, but unless we start funding colleges in a much more sustainable way in the US, I'm okay with donation based admissions.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#125

Post by Nasrudith »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #61
Qworg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 birt…

I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup who was looking to acquire our company. Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism" His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my friends do better and help each other out." Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking…

Nepotism is generally bad but there is one small perk to it within reason - they know the person they are hiring more already. It is a form of risk aversion in that sense if they already know that a person is adequate - assuming they don't appoint someone regardless of being qualified.

I know of one case of using it productively involves incentives. If you have sensitive data to process that is resistant to automation but fundamentally simple and know a son of a high level partner who is receive considerable support from him with things like paying for college or apartments then that sort of nepotism makes some objective sense even if it is unfair. Betrayal on their part would also be betraying their family and harm their means of support.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#126

Post by WhitneyLand »

The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point.

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.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#127

Post by sokoloff »

Thriptic wrote: post #75
perfunctory wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This is too broad. Is it really so? I believe that we don't want to disadvantage ourselves relative to other groups. But that we want to gain advantage at somebody's else expense - not sure.

It is absolutely so. I would much rather help a friend or group of friends do well as opposed to randoms or people I don't like. First, I like my friends and want them to be happy (and am going to be the one who hears about it when they aren't), so I have a vested interest in helping them achieve happiness and success whereas I have a weak interest in the happiness and success of randoms as we have no relationship. S…

Exactly. How many friends have you helped move for free? How many total strangers?

We do a lot more for people we know and like and trust than for randoms; I don’t believe this is restricted to just a few cultures. It shows in nature as well, unless there’s a massive amount of anthropomorphism going on in those studies. Rather more likely, it seems there would be selection pressure in favor of helping your offspring and those close to you.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#128

Post by Nasrudith »

khawkins wrote: post #90
dokein wrote: post #6

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…

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 netw…

The thing about money is that you don't need to be successful if you have enough of it. The job of a heir(ess) is to live long enough to inherit and not get disowned.

Granted there are a few cases where even money can't save someone. A severe schizophrenic for instance could have poor quality of life even if they receive top quality care and have a trust fund. Technically they are better off than if they were poor and had it but the good is greatly reduced.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#129

Post by askafriend »

asaph wrote: post #29
kasperni wrote: post #23

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…

> 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. Do you have any data to back this up?

I'm also curious. Strong claims like that require strong evidence.

I'm not just going to take that comment at face value and neither should anyone else.

Re: It’s better to be born rich than gifted

#130

Post by jesssse »

dahart wrote: post #115
ageek123 wrote: post #98

Earlier 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…

> But to a certain extent it is zero-sum. It is not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in either the US economy nor the global economy. If we educated everyone, and everyone with potential reached their potential and contributed to the economy, we can all have more wealth. It’s not a requirement that someone lose, and this is what I meant by a return of two dollars for every dollar spent. > The way you b…

College is already overpriced because of government subsidies. Your plan would make it worse.
Post reply on HN