81–90 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's always reasons why the dismissal of those with the most insight is the "right" thing to do. It turns out human beings can rationalize a lot of things that ought not be rationalized.
Notice how you take for granted (that they have the "most insight") what you should prove...
Sorry, I sometimes forget the rules since they're unspoken.
Getting low grades on exams is also linked to thinking problems in later years, we should automatically assign the same grade to all children to help them to become smarter
are you suggesting poor people are inherently less intelligent?
I went through a few years of unstable income in my early twenties (circa 2000), it wasn't altogether bad, just very very sporadic. When I think back on those years I had all kinds of bad behaviours that were not rational. For example, not paying bills because something more urgent might come up. Not looking at balances because it was easier to not know. I would go from feeling rich one month because a freelance clie…
>It took years to shed some of the residual behaviours, even after I started earning decent money. Despite having savings and reliable income I would still let bills run until they were overdue. You wouldn't believe how many "wealthy" people do the exact same thing including not paying their subcontractors etc. My dad used to do electric installations in new built homes. Usually the larger the house and the wealthier…
huh? What about the contract you agreed to when you took on the service that says you'd pay within 30 days (or whatever). I really don't understand the logic that says as long as you're willing to accept the consequences, it's ok/moral. It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad choices, but to say that there's nothing bad about ignoring the due date on your bills just doesn't make sense.
The article acknowledges that the study does not show causation and it seems a little strange to think a causal arrow in this direction is more plausible than the other direction. It seems like people who do better at thinking and memory tasks should also do better at their jobs and interviews and therefore be less likely to experience an income drop. To speculate on income drop's effect on mental acumen one would wa…
> should also do better at their jobs and interview Would this apply to group layoffs from blue colar industries, or general downturn in specific industries ? (for instance drivers as Uber/Lyft entered the market, and now that revenues are also lowering) It seems to me there could be an awful lot of cases where income drop has little to do with a worker's brain health or memory capacities. We are contemplating automa…
Cue the "I was from a poor family and I got into Stanford, everybody should be able to it" from people who don't understand how life, statistics, outliers, and relative effort required (for a middle/class rich kid playing in "easy mode" to succeed, versus a poor kid playing the "extra hard mode"). People who confuse what's possible but 10x more difficult for some income groups/backgrounds, to be the same as being equ…
I wonder if it's "fixable", though. I come from a lower-middle-class family, so does my wife; we're upper-middle-class now. Our kids are nowhere near as "driven" as we were... but, to the extent that we can, of course we're going to use all our resources to make them more successful than they "deserve". It's basic human nature, yes the game is rigged, because if you come from a family that is both stable & well-off,…
Raw, undirected effort does not do much. Effort needs to be deployed in a time, context and circumstance dependent way to yield results. The correlation between effort and outcomes is only because seizing an opportunity requires effort. So if there are several people in an obviously opportunity-rich environment, the ones who expend more effort to seize them will prosper more.
There are two questions; the first is does the environment present opportunities? A poor child in Africa with Ebola no doubt has less opportunities than a healthy one born into a wealthy western banking family. The second questions is what does opportunity look like? Many modern problems exist because people are simply blind to the opportunities that surround them.
The interplay of those two questions is beyond complex and has so far resisted any one-size-fits-all solution to the human condition.
Cue the "I was from a poor family and I got into Stanford, everybody should be able to it" from people who don't understand how life, statistics, outliers, and relative effort required (for a middle/class rich kid playing in "easy mode" to succeed, versus a poor kid playing the "extra hard mode"). People who confuse what's possible but 10x more difficult for some income groups/backgrounds, to be the same as being equ…
I wonder if it's "fixable", though. I come from a lower-middle-class family, so does my wife; we're upper-middle-class now. Our kids are nowhere near as "driven" as we were... but, to the extent that we can, of course we're going to use all our resources to make them more successful than they "deserve". It's basic human nature, yes the game is rigged, because if you come from a family that is both stable & well-off,…
Even rich kids playing on easy mode still do much better - kids with wealthier parents who do less well academically, still tend to go on to earn more later in life than poorer kids who do better [0]
I've put stints in at charities in this space, and there are people who care and trying to move the needle, but there are mountains to climb on this issue.
Improving education for kids from poorer backgrounds is one of the main ways we can solve the issue. One issue we face though is the anecdata brigade rolling out the "I did this and I only have half a GCSE in woodwork". A lack of aspiration as a result of background familiarity, and an acceptance of mediocrity from society and even some working in education are key things.
[0] just one source for stats: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/30/social-mobil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...the game is not rigged against those from poor backgrounds Rigged isn't a fair word, it's just reality. Also, as another commenter pointed out, there are people that are successful in a wide range of ways, money is just one of them. And those that had it easy early on often times don't do well later in life when things can get hard. Edit: I spent time on the streets as a teen (yes it affected me) but my siblings…
> Rigged isn't a fair word, it's just reality. The universe and the laws of physics are "just" reality. Other things, and especially society, is more like what we make them. Our society and its functioning is not some god- or nature- handed immutable, it's something that we can change, update, fix, build upon etc (and of course, regress).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Instead people wrongly think fast food is cheaper than home cooked food. Fast food is cheaper than home cooked food when you factor in time & mental effort. Cooking at home requires skills that many people do not have.
Sorry, this is beyond my understanding. Morning porridge: pour water into oats. Microwave for 2 minutes. Dinner: pour water into rice. Boil for 10 minutes. Add a rotisserie chicken from the grocery store. My 7yo does it. Do you seriously think there's a non-disabled adult incapable of pouring water in a bowl?
Getting low grades on exams is also linked to thinking problems in later years, we should automatically assign the same grade to all children to help them to become smarter
are you suggesting poor people are inherently less intelligent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, eating flour mixed with water is cheaper than vegetables. But I don't think people do that. Instead people wrongly think fast food is cheaper than home cooked food. Not sure your point of "no money for good food" Source- calories and protein and vitamins per dollar Edit- fast food is not necessarily faster. Carrots and protein shakes are faster than waiting in line for example.
> Sure, eating flour mixed with water is cheaper than vegetables. But I don't think people do that. You'd be surprised. Ever heard e.g. of "syrup sandwiches"? Or dozens of other ways poor people get by with no money for food? It's not just "fast food". And even that, it's not because they "wrongly think fast food is cheaper than home cooked food" -- it's because fast food is less stressful to make when you have to wo…