4 ms·

Maybe (and it’s definitely relevant), although I’m not sure other studies agree. But it is well established that parents’ wealth is an extremely good predictor

by klmr 8y ago

Maybe (and it’s definitely relevant), although I’m not sure other studies agree. But it is well established that parents’ wealth is an extremely good predictor of children’s wealth (see e.g. [1]). And I don’t think OP is matte_black is denying the role of intelligence. They’re merely noting that poverty, in itself, doesn’t necessarily correlate with ingenuity. [1] https://paperpile.com/app/p/5f560e7d-74f8-0316-879a-70c0cf6080bf https://paperpile.com/app/p/5f560e7d-74f8-0316-879a-70c0cf60...

tlarkworthy 8y ago
My stance is that GPs ingenuity of the poor is really the fact that some poor are clever. This makes it look like survivorship bias, (some poor succeed) but actually it's explained by the stronger causal relationship that it's better to be born smart than born wealthy. But of course, as ur link suggests, its even better to be born wealthy and smart as they are both positively correlated with success. But I think in this discussion it's worth highlighting that intelligence is a an important factor that applies to both sides of economic status, and perhaps it's more important.
- moorhosj 8y ago
  It’s much easier to display your intelligence if you have proper nutrition, sleep and exercise. It’s likely harder when you are focused on more primal needs like food.
- adamsea 8y ago
  Perhaps. But it’s not the relative importance of one thing vs the other which is most important. What is most important in the context of this conversation, imho, is the case for the profound negative effects of poverty, United-States style, on an individuals growth and the (sometimes insurmountable) challenges it creates for that person. And the reason that this matters is that poverty in a country such as the U.S. (and also many, if not most other countries) is the result of a series of political choices by people (social policy, etc) over time. In over words, it’s a phenomenon which is, if not created entirely by, is definitely affected (increased or decreases) by human behavior. Meaning it’s something we can change.
  - tlarkworthy 8y ago
    But these facts mean we are already more meritocratic than aristocratic. The relative importance of these factors define where we are in that spectrum. Being meritocratic is what we want I think. Sure, we are still a bit wealth biased, but that might actually be due to intelligence being hereditary not wealth being causal.
RyanZAG 8y ago
Assuming intelligence is the best predictor of wealth (not sure if true), and that intelligence is highly genetic as said elsewhere in this thread (not sure if true), then parent's wealth being a good predictor of children's wealth would already be explained by intelligence being genetic. So just because parent's wealth predicts children's wealth doesn't in any way make it impossible that intelligence predicts wealth too or that they'd necessarily be in conflict.

by klmr 8y ago

tlarkworthy 8y ago

My stance is that GPs ingenuity of the poor is really the fact that some poor are clever. This makes it look like survivorship bias, (some poor succeed) but actually it's explained by the stronger causal relationship that it's better to be born smart than born wealthy. But of course, as ur link suggests, its even better to be born wealthy and smart as they are both positively correlated with success. But I think in this discussion it's worth highlighting that intelligence is a an important factor that applies to both sides of economic status, and perhaps it's more important.

moorhosj 8y ago
It’s much easier to display your intelligence if you have proper nutrition, sleep and exercise. It’s likely harder when you are focused on more primal needs like food.
adamsea 8y ago
Perhaps. But it’s not the relative importance of one thing vs the other which is most important. What is most important in the context of this conversation, imho, is the case for the profound negative effects of poverty, United-States style, on an individuals growth and the (sometimes insurmountable) challenges it creates for that person. And the reason that this matters is that poverty in a country such as the U.S. (and also many, if not most other countries) is the result of a series of political choices by people (social policy, etc) over time. In over words, it’s a phenomenon which is, if not created entirely by, is definitely affected (increased or decreases) by human behavior. Meaning it’s something we can change.
- tlarkworthy 8y ago
  But these facts mean we are already more meritocratic than aristocratic. The relative importance of these factors define where we are in that spectrum. Being meritocratic is what we want I think. Sure, we are still a bit wealth biased, but that might actually be due to intelligence being hereditary not wealth being causal.

RyanZAG 8y ago

Assuming intelligence is the best predictor of wealth (not sure if true), and that intelligence is highly genetic as said elsewhere in this thread (not sure if true), then parent's wealth being a good predictor of children's wealth would already be explained by intelligence being genetic. So just because parent's wealth predicts children's wealth doesn't in any way make it impossible that intelligence predicts wealth too or that they'd necessarily be in conflict.