4 ms·

I agree with you completely. I got downvoted on a thread several weeks ago for finding issue in the US placing below Mexico on a "(relative) child poverty" meas

by aje403 9y ago

I agree with you completely. I got downvoted on a thread several weeks ago for finding issue in the US placing below Mexico on a "(relative) child poverty" measure. Regardless of whether their methodology or even results are correct - I think it's guaranteed that many readers will distort that information and propagate that distortion onward. But, pardon my cynicism and condescension, but, try arguing that with a group of social scientists/mathematicians doing null hypothesis papers with p-values at 1 SD, as well as with people, who frankly, are jealous of others and want more. Unfortunately, on the flip side, I think there is still a "how big can my neighbor's house get relative to mine before I consider organizing a mob to break into it and steal all the jewels" element to human nature and society.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
>people, who frankly, are jealous of others and want more. That's always what it boils down to, isn't it? The one argument the hardcore libertarians and FYGM people always fall back to is "well, you're just jealous. If you just worked harder, you could afford it too", which has been shown again and again to be blatantly false and a clear example of a just world fallacy. Luck plays an enormous part in how successful you are in life. There is obviously also a factor of being able to do something with those instances of luck, and again being born into the right family, having gone to the right school or having had the right encouragement is a huge factor. Once again, it boils down to luck, especially being born into the right family, with resources and support and an already-in-place social network to groom you and give you those opportunities. Do you think the son of an alcoholic single mother has the same chances in life as the son of a bank director? Social mobility is possible, but the deck is severely stacked in favor of those who already have the most.
- aje403 9y ago
  Frankly, I think it is often jealousy. It is not blatantly false that if you work harder, take a second job, take night classes, save and start a business, that you can rise up in the social ladder and provide more opportunity for your children. I have some personal biases here. There are very different shades of privilege here. The bank director may have been the son of an immigrant, had straight A's in school, got perfect math scores and found an interest in finance, gotten into a top school, and generally worked hard his entire life. Their child also has natural ability in school, his father tells him to shut up, don't complain about anything, teaches them to work hard and pursue their talents but pays for their school. The kid works 80 hours a week, perhaps develops a talent and launches a business around it, and becomes successful as well. The alcoholic single mother may not had an ounce of ability in school, partied her way through life and mooched off of her boyfriends until around 30 when she has to get a job and then keeps one to survive. Then she has a daughter, her daughter is very beautiful, fails out of school, is used to getting things for free as well, is jealous of her friends who have more, and does not end up going to college or doing anything of great significance. And then of course you have successful father, child drinks and parties their way through life, abuses others, then inherits everything and preaches to others about how they had to sacrifice everything, and, against all odds, made it. I would not complain if this unfortunately substantial portion of our population got dropped off in Siberia. I think it is very rare, but perhaps the next Von Neumann is working two jobs and failing out of school to pay the rent for his younger sister and alcoholic mother somewhere. That is a human tragedy and I hope it is rectified and I believe we've steadily been changing in that regard for centuries. We certainly have a lot of issues regarding educational opportunity that needs to be rectified. I think the wealthy are highly under taxed in this nation and that needs to be fixed, but anybody who thinks success is purely luck does not deserve success.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    It is not purely luck, it is also about being in the right position and circumstance to make use of lucky happenstances, and actually about being in a position in life that makes those lucky happenstances more likely to happen. Luck doesn't do much if you can't act on it. Conversely, lucky breaks happen more often to people who are able to expose themselves more to the possibility.
    - aje403 9y ago
      What you're saying is basic common sense (although apparently people are actually handed money to research this as well, which strikes me as scientific welfare). Here is a recipe to have more "luck" in your life and to eventually be able to "capitalize on luck": Smoke less weed Drink less Don't have kids without stable finances Get a second job or work more hours or find a better job Save money Go home and read books, study, learn a skill, or prepare to go book to school Start a business that can deliver value to consumers and/or society or work on side projects Network with people and build relationships or mentors Here is how to lose your ability to "capitalize on luck": Whine about your life circumstances online Complain that life is unfair online Smoke weed and drink multiple times a week Sit indoors all day watching tv and playing video games Settle down and have kids before you have a stable life and have achieved the life goals you want to I'm not sure what you are specifically complaining about more unless it is just a vacuous whinefest about life not being fair. That seems to be the case. I do not think it is fair that the children of billionaires and movie stars are connected to half the planet via their parents and can get into nearly any door they want to, if that is the specific scenario you are referring to. We have been gradually shifting away from this for centuries - quite nearly only the children of nobles had access to education ~400 years ago.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        You've obviously bought into a narrative, and you refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints. It's a classic case of just world fallacy.
        9y ago

by aje403 9y ago

KozmoNau7 9y ago

>people, who frankly, are jealous of others and want more. That's always what it boils down to, isn't it? The one argument the hardcore libertarians and FYGM people always fall back to is "well, you're just jealous. If you just worked harder, you could afford it too", which has been shown again and again to be blatantly false and a clear example of a just world fallacy. Luck plays an enormous part in how successful you are in life. There is obviously also a factor of being able to do something with those instances of luck, and again being born into the right family, having gone to the right school or having had the right encouragement is a huge factor. Once again, it boils down to luck, especially being born into the right family, with resources and support and an already-in-place social network to groom you and give you those opportunities. Do you think the son of an alcoholic single mother has the same chances in life as the son of a bank director? Social mobility is possible, but the deck is severely stacked in favor of those who already have the most.

aje403 9y ago
Frankly, I think it is often jealousy. It is not blatantly false that if you work harder, take a second job, take night classes, save and start a business, that you can rise up in the social ladder and provide more opportunity for your children. I have some personal biases here. There are very different shades of privilege here. The bank director may have been the son of an immigrant, had straight A's in school, got perfect math scores and found an interest in finance, gotten into a top school, and generally worked hard his entire life. Their child also has natural ability in school, his father tells him to shut up, don't complain about anything, teaches them to work hard and pursue their talents but pays for their school. The kid works 80 hours a week, perhaps develops a talent and launches a business around it, and becomes successful as well. The alcoholic single mother may not had an ounce of ability in school, partied her way through life and mooched off of her boyfriends until around 30 when she has to get a job and then keeps one to survive. Then she has a daughter, her daughter is very beautiful, fails out of school, is used to getting things for free as well, is jealous of her friends who have more, and does not end up going to college or doing anything of great significance. And then of course you have successful father, child drinks and parties their way through life, abuses others, then inherits everything and preaches to others about how they had to sacrifice everything, and, against all odds, made it. I would not complain if this unfortunately substantial portion of our population got dropped off in Siberia. I think it is very rare, but perhaps the next Von Neumann is working two jobs and failing out of school to pay the rent for his younger sister and alcoholic mother somewhere. That is a human tragedy and I hope it is rectified and I believe we've steadily been changing in that regard for centuries. We certainly have a lot of issues regarding educational opportunity that needs to be rectified. I think the wealthy are highly under taxed in this nation and that needs to be fixed, but anybody who thinks success is purely luck does not deserve success.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  It is not purely luck, it is also about being in the right position and circumstance to make use of lucky happenstances, and actually about being in a position in life that makes those lucky happenstances more likely to happen. Luck doesn't do much if you can't act on it. Conversely, lucky breaks happen more often to people who are able to expose themselves more to the possibility.
  - aje403 9y ago
    What you're saying is basic common sense (although apparently people are actually handed money to research this as well, which strikes me as scientific welfare). Here is a recipe to have more "luck" in your life and to eventually be able to "capitalize on luck": Smoke less weed Drink less Don't have kids without stable finances Get a second job or work more hours or find a better job Save money Go home and read books, study, learn a skill, or prepare to go book to school Start a business that can deliver value to consumers and/or society or work on side projects Network with people and build relationships or mentors Here is how to lose your ability to "capitalize on luck": Whine about your life circumstances online Complain that life is unfair online Smoke weed and drink multiple times a week Sit indoors all day watching tv and playing video games Settle down and have kids before you have a stable life and have achieved the life goals you want to I'm not sure what you are specifically complaining about more unless it is just a vacuous whinefest about life not being fair. That seems to be the case. I do not think it is fair that the children of billionaires and movie stars are connected to half the planet via their parents and can get into nearly any door they want to, if that is the specific scenario you are referring to. We have been gradually shifting away from this for centuries - quite nearly only the children of nobles had access to education ~400 years ago.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      You've obviously bought into a narrative, and you refuse to even consider opposing viewpoints. It's a classic case of just world fallacy.
      - 9y ago