3 ms·

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 act

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.

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.