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

191–200 of 202 posts

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

#191

Post by gamechangr »

drngdds wrote: post #21
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…

The problem isn't that rich kids get stuff that helps them. It's that other kids don't, which puts them at a major disadvantage.

This isn't going to be popular, but the "general idea" of what could be fair and "the specific application" will never be on the same side.

Why? On one hand - I love the general idea that everyone should start on the same playing field.

On the other hand - My work ethic should infact give my children a major advantage.

I know it's not PC to say that, but most fathers would like to "give an advantage" to their children. It's baked in to our basic psychology.

Maybe the question is "who decides" and then "who enforces" fair?

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

#192

Post by Kaveren »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #190
_kxbd wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. [1] http://www.iqcom…

Without doing too much digging, one of the first results in my quick Google search suggested a 128 IQ average: https://www.electronicproducts.com/News/Engineer_vs_engineer... Google and Facebook engineers even push 140 IQ when you look at how selective they are. For example, many Top 10 university graduates work there, and just based on SAT score acceptances alone, the average IQ at a top US university crosses 140-15…

I still disagree on the IQ requirement for money, but looks like you're right about this. I was mistakenly searching for "average IQ by profession", rather than "average iq for engineers". Thank you for the link!

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

#193

Post by Hydraulix989 »

Kaveren wrote: post #192
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without doing too much digging, one of the first results in my quick Google search suggested a 128 IQ average: https://www.electronicproducts.com/News/Engineer_vs_engineer... Google and Facebook engineers even push 140 IQ when you look at how selective they are. For example, many Top 10 university graduates work there, and just based on SAT score acceptances alone, the average IQ at a top US university crosses 140-15…

I still disagree on the IQ requirement for money, but looks like you're right about this. I was mistakenly searching for "average IQ by profession", rather than "average iq for engineers". Thank you for the link!

Right, I wouldn't call it a "requirement" per se, but not having such a high IQ is like being only 6 feet tall in the NBA. It takes some serious cognitive abilities to be able to amass 8 figures without any prior family fortune of any sort.

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

#194

Post by Hydraulix989 »

obscurantist wrote: post #103
Kaveren wrote: post #55

Earlier 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.

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.

How so? I don't see how the average software engineer IQ being 100 vs 130 affects the (rather questionable) proposition that the large mass of average/mediocre software engineers MIGHT outperform the handful of Jeff Dean's (the claim made by the Ortega Hypothesis). Just based on the IQ population distribution alone, it's not unreasonable to think that Jeff Dean has a 160-170+ IQ.

It is still a questionable proposition -- "10x engineers" are a thing, and brilliant singular insights that unlock billions of dollars in productivity like the concepts of convolutional neural networks and MapReduce are the brainchild of rare chart-defying individuals, rather than a product of the masses working in tandem. The Pareto Principle still seems to hold, even for software engineering (just ask any Bay Area software company's HR department).

Regardless, as an appeal to intuition, there is some sort of minimum bar (software engineers are still a VERY scarce commodity, as evidenced by market dynamics), suggesting that the average individual (100 IQ) is ill-equipped to take on the sort of abstract reasoning and novel thought processes so readily discarded by billions of years of prior evolution (indeed, knowing C++ would not have helped you as a primordial human fighting off that hungry sabertooth tiger) needed to comprehend and write robust code wading through some of the most complex systems (the Linux kernel is millions of lines of code) ever fathomed by humankind. This is the whole premise behind IQ theory, which really just boils down to a simple statistical argument.

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

#195

Post by bsheir74 »

kazinator wrote: post #164
bsheir74 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"My motivation for accumulating wealth is largely driven by a desire to provide for my future family members. inheritance tax is theft." So its bad because it would hurt you. This is the problem. The way you think. Estate taxes could pay for services that help the poor and inprove our society as a whole. But you're only concerned with making sure your own kids get out ok. But thats your job as a parent. I get it. You…

"Hurts me is bad" is an excellent line of reasoning; I can hardly imagine a valid reproach. You can't dictate to another person that what hurts them is good. > But you're only concerned with making sure your own kids get out ok. I can't speak for grandparent, but I'm concerned with all the kids getting their rightful inheritance from all their respective parents, not only my kids. That said, I don't think there is an…

"all the kids getting their rightful inheritance from all their respective parents, not only my kids."

Some kids dont get an inheritance. Some get a huge one. None of it is "rightful"... Its not deserved. Its not based on need or on merit. Its based on who your parents are. There are few things less democratic.

"That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with providing for your kids and not others."

In the context of widening inequality, your sentence should read "at the expense of others". Im not opposed to inheritance per say but it should be highly taxed.

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

#196

Post by gamechangr »

romed wrote: post #36
deleteme12345 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A complete fuck up by objective standards? That's the most subjective thing I've heard so far. Everyone that has worked with him has praised him. What are you smoking?

The ABA downgraded him in 2005 from "well qualified" to "qualified", then in 2018 said that his confirmation to the Supreme Court was not in the best interests of the legal profession or the Association. Those are certainly the people who worked most closely with him. Objectively, you'd want to find one of the top handful of legal scholars in America to serve on the court. Kavanaugh is not one of those people. He has…

You may not like him, but you are confusing opinion with facts.

Here are some facts:

At least 13 of his opinions have been vindicated by the Supreme Court already.

The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating: well-qualified.

He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the Nation’s “second highest court,” for more than 12 years.

He has written more than 300 opinions and heard more than 2,000 cases.

He has taught for more than a decade at the Nation’s two top law schools, Yale and Harvard

He served more than five years in the White House, including as White House Staff Secretary and as Associate White House Counsel.

There are many many more.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/judge-brett-...

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

#197

Post by kazinator »

bsheir74 wrote: post #195
kazinator wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hurts me is bad" is an excellent line of reasoning; I can hardly imagine a valid reproach. You can't dictate to another person that what hurts them is good. > But you're only concerned with making sure your own kids get out ok. I can't speak for grandparent, but I'm concerned with all the kids getting their rightful inheritance from all their respective parents, not only my kids. That said, I don't think there is an…

"all the kids getting their rightful inheritance from all their respective parents, not only my kids." Some kids dont get an inheritance. Some get a huge one. None of it is "rightful"... Its not deserved. Its not based on need or on merit. Its based on who your parents are. There are few things less democratic. "That said, I don't think there is anything wrong with providing for your kids and not others." In the cont…

Some kids with a rich parent also don't get an inheritance; the faithful butler gets everything. It's not necessarily true that there is no element of merit.

> There are few things less democratic.

Many of them are important to be that way: like who is permitted to enter your home; who gets to touch you and so on. Should that all be more democratic?

The modern sense of "democracy" refers to concepts like constitutional representation and controlled use of force.

If a mob decides that access to your pockets should be open to everyone, that is not democracy in the modern sense.

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

#198

Post by perfunctory »

socketnaut wrote: post #178
perfunctory wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about risk-adjusted return. That's right. So as I long as expected risk-adjusted return is positive, a rational investor is supposed to invest regardless of the tax rate. I would think.

It's not that simple because taxes modify gains but not losses. Imagine we bet $1 on a coin toss. The expected value for either of us is $0. Now imagine the winner is required to pay 10% tax on his proceeds. The expected value becomes (-$1.00 + $.90)/2 = -$0.05.

Very good example. Let's look at it. Note that the new expected value will be negative regardless of the tax rate. No matter how low it is. Even if the tax is 0%, the expected value is still, as you pointed out, $0. So a rational investor would not bet on this coin toss regardless.

Also, as brorfred pointed out, capital losses are deductible, afaik.

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

#199

Post by geocar »

lazyjones wrote: post #169
geocar wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ei…

> it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]. We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor? > 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. Straw man. It's not a valid (scientific) conclusio…

> We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor?

That’s because we can then explore if it’s causal or not. Current best research suggests it is, at least in the USA[1]

[1]: Lleras-Muney Adriana. The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies. 2005;72(1):189–221.Kawachi Ichiro, et al. Money, Schooling, and Health: Mechanisms and Causal Evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;(1186):56–68

> Straw man.

Sorry: how exactly have I misstated your point?

You’ve got a controversial opinion, and an aggressive way of presenting it (fake news). You’re giving it even though it’s not the mainstream opinion, and you’re doing it without reference or attribution. If you actually think I’m not giving you a fair shot, please explain.

My understanding is: You think that since money and lifespan are related, and education and money are related, that IFF lifespan and education are linked it must be through money?

If you've actually got a different point, then you haven’t yet made it clear to me. If you can manage that, I’ll try to address it, but this one has been addressed.

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

#200

Post by iguy »

Livven wrote: post #94
iguy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging people on their work is partly about fair play. But it's also justified by concern for the results. A system which rewards the people doing great work will produce much more of that than a system which rewards political connections. I care quite a bit that the best cancer researchers should get hired, and the best ideas get the money -- their progress is likely to directly affect people close to me. And this…

To back up the other comment, recent studies find that students from worse secondary schools with worse grades end up outperforming students from more selective schools with better grades once in medical school. So in order to get the best doctors you can't just be all "meritocratic" by looking only at the results, i.e. grades, but have to take other factors into account. --- The relationship between school type and…

If our concern is with results, then we should be looking for the best predictor of results, and school type may well improve our predictions, as you say.

We should aim to admit to medical school the people who'll make the best doctors at age 40, not just the people with the best scores at age 18.

Post reply on HN