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

This is a teenager

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 868 posts

Re: This is a teenager

#381

Post by danans »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #336
danans wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The trauma is a consequence of poverty and bad parenting which is because of low IQ You have the primary direction of causality between trauma and IQ reversed. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=childhood+trauma+and+IQ... Population scale trauma exposure and bad parenting is a result of poverty, social structures, and sometimes wars and conflicts, not something predetermined by genetics.

The IQs of adopted children have next to nothing to do with their environments, and much more to do with the IQs of their birth parents. IQ in general is very strongly heritable. There are several adoption and twin studies that have demonstrated this effect, e.g.: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8513766/

Trauma (physical and emotional) causing reduction in IQ is totally compatible with IQ being in part heritable.

Regarding race/ethnicity correlations from the paper you posted:

"(McGue et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2012). McGue et al. (2007) reported minimal ethnicity effects in the SIBS sample at intake, which we largely replicate in the current follow-up assessment. While rearing family socioeconomic status and polygenic scores were both moderately higher among Asian offspring (Cohen’s = d .36–.46; p Also, the children in that study have not been victims of trauma (or the study has not considered and controlled for it), so it says nothing about that factor in eventual IQ of the individuals studied.

Re: This is a teenager

#382

Post by cardanome »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #337
cardanome wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say that the circle of influence people have is by far the most impactful on their happiness and that of their family. This is factually wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a strong correlation between socioeconomic class and later success in life. > The individual choice to try meth or not will vastly outweigh any genetic or environmental factor on personal outcome. Drug use and poverty wouldn't be so…

You may see correlations between socioeconomic class, but they are still by far weaker than correlations with Individual behavior and choice, which is my point. Telling someone not to be born poor isn't actionable advice. Telling them their chance of success is 1000% better if they don't do drugs IS actionable advice. Telling them to live in misery and wait for the collective to solve a social problem in decades isn'…

Everyone and their dog knows not to do drugs. Still people do. This is not actionable advice.

Knowing about the effects of poverty means knowing more about yourself. Understanding yourself leads to being able to take more effective actions increasing the control you have over your life.

You seem to think it is about victim mindset vs whatever you toxic middle-class self help "individual responsibility" thing is. Real change can only happen once you understand and accept yourself, including being a victim of circumstance and birth. After that there can there be healing and proper action.

> Telling them to live in misery and wait for the collective to solve a social problem in decades isn't actionable or useful advice either.

That is not the point. The point is for them to educate themselves on the issues they are facing, to politically organize, to organize in the neighborhood, to help each other out and ideally become leaders and role-models in their community. It starts with seeking help and community, not trying to lift yourself up by your bootstraps which often is not realistic.

> Individual responsibility and effort is the foundation of collective responsibility. You can't have collective action with personal action. It isn't one or the other. The boat won't move if there is individual responsibility to paddle.

Yes, obviously collective responsibility includes a form of individual responsibility. They only work together when your are poor.

Re: This is a teenager

#383

Post by smegger001 »

James_K wrote: post #349
anon291 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately a solid number of these things would rely on the moral equivalent of slavery. > Reduce the burden of poverty. For instance, the poorer you are the further you have to travel to the grocery store. The people who often don't have the means to easily travel for food have to travel for food. No one wants to work in these neighborhoods because they are invariably awful. At some point the risk of an employee…

> Our current economic system has consistently lifted large numbers of people out of poverty historically, and is still doing it today. I think you mean China's economic system, which was in turn based on the practices of the USSR. China's economic system is lifting millions out of poverty, but western systems are systematically dragging people into it. Poverty in the US has never been lower than it was in 1973. Sinc…

The same economic systems you praise resulted mass starvations due famine killing millions in the process of trying to raise them out of poverty, (see the great leap forwards). Whats really lifting them out of poverty is the west exporting manufacturing to China. its not socialism pulling China out of poverty its mercantilism. As western cash is exchanged for Chinese products, its no surprise then that as poverty has waned in China is has been waxing in the west?

Re: This is a teenager

#384

Post by spyckie2 »

feoren wrote: post #339
thegrim33 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just being obtuse. The topic is about spending resources in an attempt to achieve a goal. You can't just say "whatever we spend just makes people's lives better so it's worth it". There's a very real cost involved, and a very real effectiveness of spending that cost. To put it to extremes as an example, if we're spending $1 per person to give them a 99% chance of living a better life, that's a much different s…

Almost all of these calculations work out extremely in favor of just giving the poor money. It's expensive to be poor, and not just for them. They cost more in healthcare, crime, and other support systems. Literally just giving all the homeless cheap housing for free is by far the better option if you actually pay attention to the numbers. The same is abundantly clear for free education. But we can't, because we like…

It's not that the US likes suffering. No, the US likes their 7% ROI.

There's a reason why the average S&P500 is still 7% year over year. Why does Coca Cola have a 3% dividend yield? Why does Google still have a 50% yoy ad revenue growth?

Why does health insurance get priced at 10% annual income, no matter how high your income seems to be? Why does mortgage / rent inevitably go up to 28% of income, no matter how high an income you seem to get?

It's because to make the numbers go up for corporations at the ROI they promised to their stakeholders, they have to make it from somewhere, and that somewhere is the consumers.

As long as we hold sacred the 7% ROI dream, that 7% ROI on assets is going to continue to leech all the excess prosperity and wealth our predecessors have enjoyed. You cannot have an infinite wealth printing machine - news flash - that money comes from society. The house that once costed 200k, and now costs 1.6 million? That 1.4 million went into funding the 7% ROI money printer. The 126k/yr Masters degree? It's also funding the 7% ROI money printer.

That's where all the money is going.

Re: This is a teenager

#385

Post by Nevermark »

It is odd that they don’t normalize the width of the dozens of 3 cohort graphs. Apparently in order to show fully filled rows.

But it dramatically blunts the visual clarity of comparison between the differing percentages in each cohort associated with better and worse outcomes.

Re: This is a teenager

#386

Post by anon291 »

magicalist wrote: post #332
anon291 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately a solid number of these things would rely on the moral equivalent of slavery. > Reduce the burden of poverty. For instance, the poorer you are the further you have to travel to the grocery store. The people who often don't have the means to easily travel for food have to travel for food. No one wants to work in these neighborhoods because they are invariably awful. At some point the risk of an employee…

> Unfortunately a solid number of these things would rely on the moral equivalent of slavery. Weird conclusion to jump to. GP did not suggest grocery stores staffed under threat of jail time anywhere. Better public transit benefits everyone. Better urban design favoring walkable neighborhoods benefits everyone. Better zoning allowing neighborhood shops at street level benefits everyone.

> Better public transit benefits everyone. Better urban design favoring walkable neighborhoods benefits everyone. Better zoning allowing neighborhood shops at street level benefits everyone.

Sure, as someone who is raising a family in a city, I completely agree. But the reason why stores leave is invariably safety issues.

Re: This is a teenager

#387

Post by liveoneggs »

James_K wrote: post #357
hammock wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The conclusion of this data presentation is that so of these people are our collective responsibility, and I just wasn't convinced. That conclusion came out of left field for me. He started off saying these certain adverse events affect you in adulthood. So the logical conclusion would be: Be involved parents, give your kids a quiet place to study, don't have a drug problem as a parent, don't tolerate bullying, don'…

Exactly, and I've always said the same thing about murderers. Why should we pay for police to catch murderers when the murderers could just not murder? This seems like a matter of individual, rather than collective responsibility. If they don't murder, it is better for us, better for them, and better for their victims. Why should we have to protect the victims of murderers when murderers could simply not kill people?…

It would be better for society if someone inclined to murder did not. Police do not protect the victim of murder -- they are dead already.

Your view appears to say "society" (the police?) should "protect" children from their own parents, if they are deemed "bad"? The line for police intervention should probably not include "living in a bad neighborhood" or "being poor". Those strategies are tried pretty often by evangelicals who steal poor children from vulnerable countries/populations, yet are perceived as bad by most people.

If the fault is with the parents then isn't it just as likely with the grandparents? or great grandparents? and so on down the line?

Re: This is a teenager

#388

Post by busyant »

James_K wrote: post #349
anon291 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately a solid number of these things would rely on the moral equivalent of slavery. > Reduce the burden of poverty. For instance, the poorer you are the further you have to travel to the grocery store. The people who often don't have the means to easily travel for food have to travel for food. No one wants to work in these neighborhoods because they are invariably awful. At some point the risk of an employee…

> Our current economic system has consistently lifted large numbers of people out of poverty historically, and is still doing it today. I think you mean China's economic system, which was in turn based on the practices of the USSR. China's economic system is lifting millions out of poverty, but western systems are systematically dragging people into it. Poverty in the US has never been lower than it was in 1973. Sinc…

> Between 1973 and 2013, the number of people in poverty in the US increased by ~60%.

You edited your comment. I believe it originally contained the text above.

I'm assuming the edit was due to the fact that the statistic was based on absolute numbers and was not corrected for US population growth.

I also think the US vs China comparison is basically apples to bowling balls. It's "easy" to lift a giant percentage of the population out of poverty when a large swath of your population is in poverty.

Not saying the US doesn't deserve some criticism here, but your comparison was not apt.

Re: This is a teenager

#389

Post by gowld »

unholythree wrote: post #361
feoren wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all of these calculations work out extremely in favor of just giving the poor money. It's expensive to be poor, and not just for them. They cost more in healthcare, crime, and other support systems. Literally just giving all the homeless cheap housing for free is by far the better option if you actually pay attention to the numbers. The same is abundantly clear for free education. But we can't, because we like…

Except inflation, in the US we gave everyone money a couple of years ago (probably had to) and it caused (probably unavoidable) spectacular inflation. We narrowly achieved our soft landing, but that should have taught us that while sometime helicopter money works, it isn’t free.

Inflation wasn't caused by the giving, it was caused by the printing. The cure for that is to destroy money (taxation). If you tax the people you just gave to, that's just doing nothing with extra steps. So if you want to help someone by giving them money, you need to take that money from someone else.

Giving without taking is (Keynesian) only useful when it "greases the gears of the economy" enabling productive people to trade with consumer, in which case the inflation is cancelled out by the increased real productivity.

Re: This is a teenager

#390

Post by ambrose2 »

edm0nd wrote: post #193
zer00eyz wrote: post #39

>>> He'll be bullied at school. He'll be held back a few grades. He won't go to college. I dont even know where to start with this. 1. The whole anti bullying campaign that we now have two and a half decades of in schools has backfired spectacularly. This feels like "well DARE didn't work, we need to put this money somewhere else". We tell kids dont bully people, but if you defend yourself in a fight everyone gets su…

Who cares about zero tolerance rules tho, just simply ignore them on the parent and adult level. My nephew was getting bullied and we told him the kid bullying him was simply just mad at his own home life and to ignore him. We also told him that if the bully attacked him first, he has 100% the right to punch him back. Well well well, the bully cornered him in the school bathroom and attacked him. My nephew punched hi…

You can’t say that you can just not care about zero tolerance. I was the nephew in a similar story and was probably held back from membership in the National Honor Society because of the timing of the suspension, worsening my college applications.
Post reply on HN