It’s better to be born rich than gifted • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by 1999 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews:

1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination .

2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.

Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well.

The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.

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

#42

Post by pjscott » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:12 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #11

I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem: 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.

We've identified over a thousand genetic loci that predict educational attainment [1], though each one has only a very small effect. That's far from being all of them, of course.

[1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf

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

#43

Post by kevinali1 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:24 PM UTC

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.

Many times those colleges are great because of those donations... So maybe it is fair... Perspective

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

#44

Post by friedman23 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

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.

When a parent donates 1 million dollars to a school with the expectation that their child will gain admission and that 1 million dollars allows the school enough resources to bring on 5 more students than they expected does it really matter?

We should be optimizing for maximum utility not dubious concepts such as fairness.

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

#45

Post by paulpauper » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:31 PM UTC

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #33

paulpauper wrote: post #27

Jordan Peterson says it's the opposite. I guess it also depends on how one defines 'rich'. If you're the only child of a multi-millionaire family, then you're in a much better financial position than being one of 3-5 children of a family that is only upper-middle class. But one cannot underestimate the power of having a high IQ though in terms of making wealth. You look at at all these successful people in STEM and s…

If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth. Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence), squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevita…

>If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth.

It depends how one defines wealth. If the choice is framed as choosing between $10 million lump sum with no taxes or any conditions vs. an IQ of 130, then maybe the $10 million and an IQ of 100 is the better bet. However, these studies define 'wealthy' (assuming they even quantify it at all) to be merely upper-middle class, which is much less, and this this wealth is further diluted by number of siblings and other factors.

>. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ.

That's my point and I agree. But many of these articles downplay or ignore the role of IQ. IQ is still necessary but it may not be sufficient.

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

#46

Post by jogjayr » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #8

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…

Mohandas aka Mahatma Gandhi (not "Ghandi", please) went to law school in England and had a successful law practice in Apartheid-era South Africa. He was considered a pillar of the Indian community in SA, one of its major civic leaders. It's hard to believe he would've attained such respectability and influence within the community without achieving "conventional" success first.

And his successes against the racist colonial government in SA were what built his reputation and gave him instant credibility when he returned to India.

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

#47

Post by Hydraulix989 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #45

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth. Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence), squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevita…

>If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth. It depends how one defines wealth. If the choice is framed as choosing between $10 million lump sum with no taxes or any conditions vs. an IQ of 130, then maybe the $10 million and an IQ of 100 is the better bet. However, these studies define 'wealthy' (assuming they even quantify it at all) to be merely upper-middle class, which is much les…

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.

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

#48

Post by elicash » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

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 question is what interest we have when designing our laws and culture in providing opportunities to people born with fewer of them. People who can provide tremendous value are being shut out because of inequality, and I want a talented person who could start a business and create tens of thousand of jobs to have that chance not just out of fairness (like you say) but because it's also good for all of us.

So yeah, people can inherit wealth but it seems obvious there is tons of opportunity to unlock a lot of potential that's being thrown away due to people being blind to the costs of income inequality.

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

#49

Post by perfunctory » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

1999 wrote: post #41

I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews: 1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place i…

I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?

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

#50

Post by why_only_15 » Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #4

> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college. Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics. > And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now. I guess you can use t…

They talk about these things in the article. Somebody did a study on retirees, and 20,000 of them gave DNA samples as well. They used the DNA samples and did a broad test (i.e. not 1 gene but 1,000,000) and were able to correlate the genetic test at a significant level with educational attainment. The article says it explains 11% of the difference. It also mentions that it only explains these things for white people because most gene tests are on white people and attempting to correlate things in other ways can come up with bizarre findings. The test has reportedly been independently verified.