4 ms·

1. We need "cogs" in the system. In a developed nation in the 21st century being a "cog" is a really great existence. 2. Profoundly gifted people generally do

1. We need "cogs" in the system. In a developed nation in the 21st century being a "cog" is a really great existence. 2. Profoundly gifted people generally do rise to the top as our system is already structured, assuming they want to, given the average amount of support. "The System" as it stands is doing a great job of the dual goals of helping the average live their lives to the fullest and also giving the gifted a chance to rise above the rest.

afpx 9y ago
I do agree that ‘cogs’ are necessary. However, shouldn’t the individual be able to decide that, not the educational system? The current system doesn’t enrich children in ways that allow kids to explore other options. Look up successful technology company founders - you’ll see that many went to alternative schools like Montessori. But, the vast majority of kids don’t have access to that type of exploratory education. I disagree about your second point based on my experiences. I grew up ‘gifted’ in a working class, rust belt city. Many of my schoolmates ended up with decent middle class jobs. And, a surprising number even went on to get PhDs. An even more surprising number didn’t make it to graduation. The majority of the PhDs ended up switching fields (with tremendous debt) after working for a few years. The few that went on to become professors, successful researchers, and innovatvators came from rich families with well-educated and successful parents. My main criticism of our system is that it doesn’t veer far from basic primate behavior. I would even bet that a general model of primate hierarchical system would do well in predicting human success. And, that’s an absurd model, especially today. Humans have given up or suppressed many primate behaviors in order to live in the modern world. But, we still hold on to familial hierarchical behavior - maybe because the dopamine rush of being at the top just feels so damn good. I am very curious to know your background and why you hold those opinions.
- ataturk 9y ago
  Interesting comment. I grew up in a blue-ish collar rust-belt city, was "gifted" (whatever that means) and ended up getting a PhD (no debts, though) that I now arguably don't make money from. Everything you mentioned is very common, but I'm not sure that observation points to some kind of change we can make versus the underlying day to day realities of the US circa 2017. My big takeaway from years inside higher education both as a student and as staff and adjunct faculty is that the most successful people are those aligned with wealthy, connected families and despite my aptitude, I was always on the outside looking in. It's as though there are two colleges, two universities, which is the same in the "real world" also--a few get brought along because they're connected and the rest of us are encouraged to believe in the illusion, the lie, really, that we can have true upward mobility. I have been upwardly mobile, but only because where I came from was so low. In comparison to the insiders I am talking about, many of whom I would characterize as drooling idiots who would never make it on their own merits, my own arc is far less profound. The children of the wealthy and connected will always have the upper hand and there's nothing you can do about it other than take big risks to start your own business and build up wealth faster than working for someone else can accomplish. If you succeed, you will be "new money" and remain an outsider. You may improve the lot of your heirs, however. The biggest slap for me in my whole life of hard work and continuous improvement is the realization that I prospered more via marrying well than I have in my actual career and that even my relatively modest wealth does not compare to the most successful people because the bar has moved so incredibly far up.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    What did you get your PhD in, from what quality school, and did you pursue a faculty position with the expectation of wealth?
  - afpx 9y ago
    Your last paragraph is particularly funny to me because it’s exactly my experience, too. For all my hard work and successes, my marriage had the most impact. It opened doors to me that weren’t previously available. And, that access was most important.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  To your first point, business is largely a zero sum game at any given time for business owners. I believe the number of entrepreneurs who can be supported by the economic ecosystem is already at its current carrying capacity, so giving more opportunity to the poor will not increase the total sum but rather just change the social background of those who go on to become entrepreneurs. This is not a bad thing, but it still leaves us with the same number of people succeeding and failing as we have now. To the anecdotes you mention, there is only a finite amount of basic research which can be done at any given time. A finite number of avenues which can be pursued. At a certain point the work being done by scientists becomes redundant. From this perspective, throwing more researchers at a problem doesn't necessarily increase our productivity. Those whose work is valued enough by someone willing to pay - either Universities or businesses - will be the ones who get to pursue that work. Again, I believe that the active research being done now is sufficiently pursuing those promising lines of research which exist. To your third point, humanity has advanced very much from our primitive existence in the distant past, in terms of the well being of the masses as well as our collective capabilities. If you feel the existence of hierarchies is antithetical to progress, I would challenge you to find any complex system in which hierarchy of some sort does not exist. I believe that hierarchy is a fundamental characteristic of productive, complex systems.
  - afpx 9y ago
    To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with hierarchies. I implied that when I said that ‘cogs’ are necessary. Hierarchies are a good way of organizing work. But, I do think there is a problem with social and economic systems that encourage animal hierarchies - ones where a person’s birth status directly affects their future social status. That is very inefficient.
traverseda 9y ago
>Profoundly gifted people generally do rise to the top as our system is already structured, assuming they want to, given the average amount of support. In the US? What makes you think that?
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Well the public and private school system which the vast majority of youth in the US take part in has mechanisms for identifying the gifted. Those who excel in school generally go on in life to better themselves. Most people are not profoundly gifted, so the majority simply do as well as their parents, give or take.
  - meebs 9y ago
    Except for the horrendous public schools that are everywhere in the USA? Or is it that there are simply very, very few gifted people in poor areas? Poor minorities are genetically less talented is your thesis? The distorted perspective of reality by the wealthy on HackerNews never ceases to amaze.
  - psoy 9y ago
    I don't know, wouldn't be so sure without actual supporting data. Anecdotally I know many talented people who got "broken" at high school level (due to any number of issues, from poverty to physical and emotional trauma). Having connections, mentors, initial capital, educated family, it all helps a lot. This is not US-specific either, I made it to the US from a war-torn country across the globe with no money or connections, but I am extremely stubborn. There were definitely people who didn't make it this far who arguably had the pure IQ advantage.
jaredklewis 9y ago
How could we possibly know this? We would at least need to know how many potentially profoundly gifted people there are before we can know if we’ve done a good job supporting them.

afpx 9y ago

I do agree that ‘cogs’ are necessary. However, shouldn’t the individual be able to decide that, not the educational system? The current system doesn’t enrich children in ways that allow kids to explore other options. Look up successful technology company founders - you’ll see that many went to alternative schools like Montessori. But, the vast majority of kids don’t have access to that type of exploratory education. I disagree about your second point based on my experiences. I grew up ‘gifted’ in a working class, rust belt city. Many of my schoolmates ended up with decent middle class jobs. And, a surprising number even went on to get PhDs. An even more surprising number didn’t make it to graduation. The majority of the PhDs ended up switching fields (with tremendous debt) after working for a few years. The few that went on to become professors, successful researchers, and innovatvators came from rich families with well-educated and successful parents. My main criticism of our system is that it doesn’t veer far from basic primate behavior. I would even bet that a general model of primate hierarchical system would do well in predicting human success. And, that’s an absurd model, especially today. Humans have given up or suppressed many primate behaviors in order to live in the modern world. But, we still hold on to familial hierarchical behavior - maybe because the dopamine rush of being at the top just feels so damn good. I am very curious to know your background and why you hold those opinions.

ataturk 9y ago
Interesting comment. I grew up in a blue-ish collar rust-belt city, was "gifted" (whatever that means) and ended up getting a PhD (no debts, though) that I now arguably don't make money from. Everything you mentioned is very common, but I'm not sure that observation points to some kind of change we can make versus the underlying day to day realities of the US circa 2017. My big takeaway from years inside higher education both as a student and as staff and adjunct faculty is that the most successful people are those aligned with wealthy, connected families and despite my aptitude, I was always on the outside looking in. It's as though there are two colleges, two universities, which is the same in the "real world" also--a few get brought along because they're connected and the rest of us are encouraged to believe in the illusion, the lie, really, that we can have true upward mobility. I have been upwardly mobile, but only because where I came from was so low. In comparison to the insiders I am talking about, many of whom I would characterize as drooling idiots who would never make it on their own merits, my own arc is far less profound. The children of the wealthy and connected will always have the upper hand and there's nothing you can do about it other than take big risks to start your own business and build up wealth faster than working for someone else can accomplish. If you succeed, you will be "new money" and remain an outsider. You may improve the lot of your heirs, however. The biggest slap for me in my whole life of hard work and continuous improvement is the realization that I prospered more via marrying well than I have in my actual career and that even my relatively modest wealth does not compare to the most successful people because the bar has moved so incredibly far up.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  What did you get your PhD in, from what quality school, and did you pursue a faculty position with the expectation of wealth?
- afpx 9y ago
  Your last paragraph is particularly funny to me because it’s exactly my experience, too. For all my hard work and successes, my marriage had the most impact. It opened doors to me that weren’t previously available. And, that access was most important.
meri_dian 9y ago
To your first point, business is largely a zero sum game at any given time for business owners. I believe the number of entrepreneurs who can be supported by the economic ecosystem is already at its current carrying capacity, so giving more opportunity to the poor will not increase the total sum but rather just change the social background of those who go on to become entrepreneurs. This is not a bad thing, but it still leaves us with the same number of people succeeding and failing as we have now. To the anecdotes you mention, there is only a finite amount of basic research which can be done at any given time. A finite number of avenues which can be pursued. At a certain point the work being done by scientists becomes redundant. From this perspective, throwing more researchers at a problem doesn't necessarily increase our productivity. Those whose work is valued enough by someone willing to pay - either Universities or businesses - will be the ones who get to pursue that work. Again, I believe that the active research being done now is sufficiently pursuing those promising lines of research which exist. To your third point, humanity has advanced very much from our primitive existence in the distant past, in terms of the well being of the masses as well as our collective capabilities. If you feel the existence of hierarchies is antithetical to progress, I would challenge you to find any complex system in which hierarchy of some sort does not exist. I believe that hierarchy is a fundamental characteristic of productive, complex systems.
- afpx 9y ago
  To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with hierarchies. I implied that when I said that ‘cogs’ are necessary. Hierarchies are a good way of organizing work. But, I do think there is a problem with social and economic systems that encourage animal hierarchies - ones where a person’s birth status directly affects their future social status. That is very inefficient.

traverseda 9y ago

>Profoundly gifted people generally do rise to the top as our system is already structured, assuming they want to, given the average amount of support. In the US? What makes you think that?

meri_dian 9y ago
Well the public and private school system which the vast majority of youth in the US take part in has mechanisms for identifying the gifted. Those who excel in school generally go on in life to better themselves. Most people are not profoundly gifted, so the majority simply do as well as their parents, give or take.
- meebs 9y ago
  Except for the horrendous public schools that are everywhere in the USA? Or is it that there are simply very, very few gifted people in poor areas? Poor minorities are genetically less talented is your thesis? The distorted perspective of reality by the wealthy on HackerNews never ceases to amaze.
- psoy 9y ago
  I don't know, wouldn't be so sure without actual supporting data. Anecdotally I know many talented people who got "broken" at high school level (due to any number of issues, from poverty to physical and emotional trauma). Having connections, mentors, initial capital, educated family, it all helps a lot. This is not US-specific either, I made it to the US from a war-torn country across the globe with no money or connections, but I am extremely stubborn. There were definitely people who didn't make it this far who arguably had the pure IQ advantage.

jaredklewis 9y ago

How could we possibly know this? We would at least need to know how many potentially profoundly gifted people there are before we can know if we’ve done a good job supporting them.