13 ms·

It’s better to be born rich than gifted

220 points by joeyespo 8y ago

cortesoft 8y ago
Depends on how 'better' is defined. It looks like they are defining 'better' in this study as 'graduating from college'. That seems like an awfully narrow view of better.
- goldfeld 8y ago
  If you're born to wealth but not particularly bright, you might have some any degree and live a lifetime of silenced frustration through easy habits; if you're gifted and poor, you'll struggle and it might take you decades longer but there's still a decent shot at finding deep fulfillment. Gifted talent, pursued, provides a deeper feeling of gratitude in the long run than any means.
  - majormajor 8y ago
    Is "deep fulfillment" really linked to accomplishments from being gifted, vs social/family/personal accomplishments?
    - goldfeld 8y ago
      I think everyone has bright spots so that gifted is something you discover about you, and maybe anyone can be so, given enough hypothetical time. Being gifted in such a social context means actually finding and working your gift, the latter of which takes time and explains why most people haven't/aren't. You're right that the deeper, long-lasting fulfillment is found in community and personal growth, but there's still a distinct feeling that goes together with being really skilled at something and executing well, including social of course.
- twblalock 8y ago
  Graduating from college is correlated with better life outcomes in a lot of areas, including income, health[1], and life expectancy[2][3]. The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for "better". [1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
  - tomp 8y ago
    Just if wealth is correlated with graduation, and graduation is correlated with success, doesn't mean that wealth is correlated with success. If anything, the article could be interpreted to apply the opposite - those skilled poor people that do graduate have climbed so high so fast compared to unskilled rich graduates that they're very likely to climb even farther further in life.
Rjevski 8y ago
No-bullshit link: https://archive.is/Yp12Q https://archive.is/Yp12Q Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on the subscription page.
bko 8y ago
> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college. Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics. > And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now. I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.
- paulpauper 8y ago
  It has nothing to do with eugenics. One can also create a genetic index/profile for heart disease risk or anything else.
  - bko 8y ago
    Pre-disposition to illness is fine. But that's not what the researchers are talking about when they talk about a superior "genetic score".
- why_only_15 8y ago
  They talk about these things in the article. Somebody did a study on retirees, and 20,000 of them gave DNA samples as well. They used the DNA samples and did a broad test (i.e. not 1 gene but 1,000,000) and were able to correlate the genetic test at a significant level with educational attainment. The article says it explains 11% of the difference. It also mentions that it only explains these things for white people because most gene tests are on white people and attempting to correlate things in other ways can come up with bizarre findings. The test has reportedly been independently verified.
MisterOctober 8y ago
Reminds me of the original "Ocean's 11" -- after silver-spoon punk Jimmy Foster [Lawford] is done needling his gangster soon-to-be stepdad Duke Santos [Romero], Santos launches in to a story about growing up tough in the streets and how it prepared him to "always fight" [and thereby become wealthy], but at a cost of years and health. After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better." Santos [incredulous] : "What way is that?" Foster : "Choose rich parents." Santos : "Ha! You can bet your boots it is."
dokein 8y ago
This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level (spurring more growth at earlier ages). The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.
- balt_s 8y ago
  > Should parents be allowed To paraphrase: "the question is not who will let them, but who will stop them?"
- Qworg 8y ago
  It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?
  - lend000 8y ago
    Unless you're a strong believer in free will, someone who is lazy, sleazy, unintelligent, etc. (has little "merit") did not 'choose' to be born that way, or even if they say they did, they did not choose to have the nature/nurture that caused them to be the kind of person to make that 'choice.' No more than a bird chooses to eat a worm or a salmon chooses to swim upstream, anyway. We can build productive societies based on incentive structures we put around merit, such as capitalist market systems. But in reality, nothing is fair and simultaneously everything is fair. Fairness is undefinable outside of a closed system. It's just how it is. Heuristics to define merit are just forms of evolution for human society that allow more productive people to command more responsibility.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of a person, nor the highest attainment of success. Ghandi. Joan of Arc. Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Martin Luther King. William Wallace. Einstein. Etc. Freedom, human dignity, compassion, knowing how to live right. These all tend to fall outside the scope of corporate aspiration. The article is talking about "success" by essentially a single metric. Humankind does not live by bread alone.
- curuinor 8y ago
  born rich (his dad was a provincial minister) poor poor (middle-class, if you think a carpenter is that way, maybe) middle-class rich (born a landed knight) rich (although his father's engineering firm went bust but restarted and did well in the second time and they had money worries at times) about 0.5-5% of people are rich by most definitions humankind does not live by bread alone, but put a human in a box and don't feed them and see what happens
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Put all humans in a mental box that suggests that how much money they make and how much profit they turn are all that matter and see what happens. That isn't pretty either. We are seeing some of the gruesome outcomes of that currently, for example: https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d2320726 https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d23207...
- yumraj 8y ago
  "Gandhi" (गांधी), not "Ghandi"
- jogjayr 8y ago
  Mohandas aka Mahatma Gandhi (not "Ghandi", please) went to law school in England and had a successful law practice in Apartheid-era South Africa. He was considered a pillar of the Indian community in SA, one of its major civic leaders. It's hard to believe he would've attained such respectability and influence within the community without achieving "conventional" success first. And his successes against the racist colonial government in SA were what built his reputation and gave him instant credibility when he returned to India.
BurningFrog 8y ago
I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem: Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.
- pjscott 8y ago
  We've identified over a thousand genetic loci that predict educational attainment [1], though each one has only a very small effect. That's far from being all of them, of course. [1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf
- why_only_15 8y ago
  It literally specifies all these things in the article. There are thousands of genes that are all in part responsible and the study was initially performed across 20,000 people and then was replicated in independent studies.
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    I'm sure they used all available knowledge. My point is that right now we know very little.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sonabinu 8y ago
Rich always have the advantage of better nutrition, information and resources (if parents don't have time, they hire tutors). Is it truly a genetic advantage or a socio-economic advantage? Is there a good way to hold all other variables as a constant in this study?
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Rich parents also are more likely to show their kids how to handle money and get rich. See the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kiyosaki. Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely puts them at a serious disadvantage.
  - mercer 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_...
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Thanks for the info, I didn't know that about him. I've read his book, and the fundamental idea of looking at money differently is sound. I know I look at money very differently now than I did when I was young. I.e. I view it now as a tool rather than a scorecard.
      - mercer 8y ago
        Yeah, I can see that. I rather believe in the "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick" principle, so it's quite possible his advice is good, or at least part of it. Just figured it'd be good to know this about him.
kasperni 8y ago
Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others. I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is some bootstrap cash. You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds. Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.
- asaph 8y ago
  > Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull (sic) entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others. Do you have any data to back this up?
  - askafriend 8y ago
    I'm also curious. Strong claims like that require strong evidence. I'm not just going to take that comment at face value and neither should anyone else.
- pedrosorio 8y ago
  The article repeats several times something along the lines of "money trumps genes" at the beginning, but it does mention what you're saying later on when talking about why IQ tests were deceiving: "Such tests can’t be administered at conception, birth or infancy — before high-income parents have given their young children a head start by feeding them well, reading to them at higher rates and enrolling them in more activities. “Two people who are genetically similar can have strikingly different IQ test scores because the richer ones have invested more in their kids,” Papageorge said. When you look at the raw genetic potential of the two people, though, “you see they’re actually quite similar.”"
paulpauper 8y ago
Jordan Peterson says it's the opposite. I guess it also depends on how one defines 'rich'. If you're the only child of a multi-millionaire family, then you're in a much better financial position than being one of 3-5 children of a family that is only upper-middle class. But one cannot underestimate the power of having a high IQ though in terms of making wealth. You look at at all these successful people in STEM and start-ups, many from middle-class families and 2nd gen. immigrant families, and they tend to all have high IQs. Just a few days ago someone solved the 310 bitcoin challenge and made a cool $2 million. The person who solved it probably has a high IQ. Same for ppl who invested in bitcoin early. Again and again, with the possible exception of some actor and athletes, you find that with wealth, a high IQ is not far behind.
- teratoma 8y ago
  Jordan Peterson is a hack.* *He's not a data analyst, a behavioral scientist, or anything other than a public figure. A youtube personality's opinion doesn't matter in the real world.
- Hydraulix989 8y ago
  If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth. Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence), squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevitably decides to punch you in the gut, and tremendous sacrifices in terms of hard work, time, MORALITY (screwing people over and fighting hard to prevent others who are actively working against you from doing the same to you), and personal health. I think the fact that you can solve puzzles really well on a test doesn't really lend itself well to money making at all. There's FAR too much of a chance/luck component to making money to attribute it to IQ alone. Any time I've ever made money, I came back thinking wow, I was very lucky -- even though everyone is still biased towards themselves in terms of their own personal attributes or qualities (intelligence, hard work, savviness, hustling, etc.) when they make money, I can still recognize that yes, buying and selling crypto at the right time was almost entirely luck -- so was teaching myself how to code when I was 8 years old growing up in a rural area where everyone else thought it was a waste of time. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ. Often you'll find people who had the exact same amount of "talent" or worked just as hard doing exactly the same things as someone who has a lot of money but don't have anything to show for it. Right place, right time. Meanwhile, having money handed to you on a silver plate by virtue of your birth family means being able to accomplish all of the above without doing or sacrificing anything at all, and you even still have a free pass from society to still have an ego about it. Even worse, many people somehow see having money as a moral characteristic while selectively ignoring the very often immoral cost of acquisition.
romed 8y ago
Of course it is, especially in America. Just look at a guy like Brett Kavanaugh: a complete fuckup by objective standards, gets installed in the Supreme Court for life, for no other reason than he was born on that trajectory: rich kid, prep school, legacy admission to Yale.
- deleteme12345 8y ago
  A complete fuck up by objective standards? That's the most subjective thing I've heard so far. Everyone that has worked with him has praised him. What are you smoking?
  - romed 8y ago
    The ABA downgraded him in 2005 from "well qualified" to "qualified", then in 2018 said that his confirmation to the Supreme Court was not in the best interests of the legal profession or the Association. Those are certainly the people who worked most closely with him. Objectively, you'd want to find one of the top handful of legal scholars in America to serve on the court. Kavanaugh is not one of those people. He has a scant record of legal scholarship. He does have a documented record of getting into fights in bars.
    - golemiprague 8y ago
      What's wrong with having a fight? It actually shows that he didn't grow up in some sterile middle class suburb but actually was exposed to all walks of life. I was in a fight when I was 19, didn't affect my life at all, what kind of person are you to even think a fight in your teenage years suppose to mean anything?
    - gamechangr 8y ago
      You may not like him, but you are confusing opinion with facts. Here are some facts: At least 13 of his opinions have been vindicated by the Supreme Court already. The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating: well-qualified. He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the Nation’s “second highest court,” for more than 12 years. He has written more than 300 opinions and heard more than 2,000 cases. He has taught for more than a decade at the Nation’s two top law schools, Yale and Harvard He served more than five years in the White House, including as White House Staff Secretary and as Associate White House Counsel. There are many many more. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/judge-brett-m-kavanaugh-exceptionally-qualified-deserving-nominee-supreme-court/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/judge-brett-...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ccnafr 8y ago
The understatement of the century
1999 8y ago
I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews: 1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . 2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else. Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well. The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- perfunctory 8y ago
  I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?
  - mikekij 8y ago
    A rational investor is concerned with risk-adjust returns after taxes. The fact that capital gains rates are lower than income rates allows an investor to accept a higher level of risk than if the two tax rates were lower.
    - 8y ago
lazyjones 8y ago
So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing typical political propaganda using fake science these days?
- geocar 8y ago
  "Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go. [1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]. We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor? > if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. Straw man. It's not a valid (scientific) conclusion to apply the result of correlation studies on a large mixed group to selected subgroups and assume it will apply equally. IOW, rich people with college degree might not live longer than those without just because the general population does. But my point was something else: a better life is neither measured by wealth nor academic success or life expectancy at 25. It's entirely subjective and such click-baity titles are misleading. It should read "it's better for academic success to be born rich than gifted", but then it would't be sensationalist enough.
    - geocar 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sdinsn 8y ago
It's better to be born rich than gifted, if you think that college graduation rates are the number one most important thing in the world.
sunstone 8y ago
It's much more likely for a gifted person to become rich than it is for a rich person to become gifted.
jimnotgym 8y ago
This should be the tag line for politicians in the UK!
WhitneyLand 8y ago
The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point. Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted, educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages. It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of people in the latter category.
jstewartmobile 8y ago
For every silver spoon who flies through higher-ed to the gilded cage at the end of the rainbow, there are several more left back home--still living under daddy's shadow--duking it out with the others for a bigger share of the corpse. Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our souls.
badrabbit 8y ago
You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born rich might not amount to more than what they were born with. If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well? All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.
starchild_3001 8y ago
Lot's of nonsense here. Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors and compare the two. Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure to the right kind of things). Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all drive success in life). What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.
richard___ 8y ago
How the hell is this study seen in a negative light? Genes, how fast your brain processes information, CANNOT be changed. That's just biology. Money, education, knowledge - these CAN be changed.

220 points by joeyespo 8y ago

Depends on how 'better' is defined. It looks like they are defining 'better' in this study as 'graduating from college'. That seems like an awfully narrow view of better.

goldfeld 8y ago
If you're born to wealth but not particularly bright, you might have some any degree and live a lifetime of silenced frustration through easy habits; if you're gifted and poor, you'll struggle and it might take you decades longer but there's still a decent shot at finding deep fulfillment. Gifted talent, pursued, provides a deeper feeling of gratitude in the long run than any means.
- majormajor 8y ago
  Is "deep fulfillment" really linked to accomplishments from being gifted, vs social/family/personal accomplishments?
  - goldfeld 8y ago
    I think everyone has bright spots so that gifted is something you discover about you, and maybe anyone can be so, given enough hypothetical time. Being gifted in such a social context means actually finding and working your gift, the latter of which takes time and explains why most people haven't/aren't. You're right that the deeper, long-lasting fulfillment is found in community and personal growth, but there's still a distinct feeling that goes together with being really skilled at something and executing well, including social of course.
twblalock 8y ago
Graduating from college is correlated with better life outcomes in a lot of areas, including income, health[1], and life expectancy[2][3]. The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for "better". [1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
- tomp 8y ago
  Just if wealth is correlated with graduation, and graduation is correlated with success, doesn't mean that wealth is correlated with success. If anything, the article could be interpreted to apply the opposite - those skilled poor people that do graduate have climbed so high so fast compared to unskilled rich graduates that they're very likely to climb even farther further in life.

Rjevski 8y ago

No-bullshit link: https://archive.is/Yp12Q https://archive.is/Yp12Q Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on the subscription page.

bko 8y ago

> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college. Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely like eugenics. > And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people for now. I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.

paulpauper 8y ago
It has nothing to do with eugenics. One can also create a genetic index/profile for heart disease risk or anything else.
- bko 8y ago
  Pre-disposition to illness is fine. But that's not what the researchers are talking about when they talk about a superior "genetic score".
why_only_15 8y ago
They talk about these things in the article. Somebody did a study on retirees, and 20,000 of them gave DNA samples as well. They used the DNA samples and did a broad test (i.e. not 1 gene but 1,000,000) and were able to correlate the genetic test at a significant level with educational attainment. The article says it explains 11% of the difference. It also mentions that it only explains these things for white people because most gene tests are on white people and attempting to correlate things in other ways can come up with bizarre findings. The test has reportedly been independently verified.

MisterOctober 8y ago

Reminds me of the original "Ocean's 11" -- after silver-spoon punk Jimmy Foster [Lawford] is done needling his gangster soon-to-be stepdad Duke Santos [Romero], Santos launches in to a story about growing up tough in the streets and how it prepared him to "always fight" [and thereby become wealthy], but at a cost of years and health. After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better." Santos [incredulous] : "What way is that?" Foster : "Choose rich parents." Santos : "Ha! You can bet your boots it is."

dokein 8y ago

This isn’t going to be popular, but: Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be more able to provide that boost. For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level (spurring more growth at earlier ages). The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.

balt_s 8y ago
> Should parents be allowed To paraphrase: "the question is not who will let them, but who will stop them?"
Qworg 8y ago
It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to advantage our inner group over other groups. This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?
- lend000 8y ago
  Unless you're a strong believer in free will, someone who is lazy, sleazy, unintelligent, etc. (has little "merit") did not 'choose' to be born that way, or even if they say they did, they did not choose to have the nature/nurture that caused them to be the kind of person to make that 'choice.' No more than a bird chooses to eat a worm or a salmon chooses to swim upstream, anyway. We can build productive societies based on incentive structures we put around merit, such as capitalist market systems. But in reality, nothing is fair and simultaneously everything is fair. Fairness is undefinable outside of a closed system. It's just how it is. Heuristics to define merit are just forms of evolution for human society that allow more productive people to command more responsibility.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of a person, nor the highest attainment of success. Ghandi. Joan of Arc. Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Martin Luther King. William Wallace. Einstein. Etc. Freedom, human dignity, compassion, knowing how to live right. These all tend to fall outside the scope of corporate aspiration. The article is talking about "success" by essentially a single metric. Humankind does not live by bread alone.

curuinor 8y ago
born rich (his dad was a provincial minister) poor poor (middle-class, if you think a carpenter is that way, maybe) middle-class rich (born a landed knight) rich (although his father's engineering firm went bust but restarted and did well in the second time and they had money worries at times) about 0.5-5% of people are rich by most definitions humankind does not live by bread alone, but put a human in a box and don't feed them and see what happens
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Put all humans in a mental box that suggests that how much money they make and how much profit they turn are all that matter and see what happens. That isn't pretty either. We are seeing some of the gruesome outcomes of that currently, for example: https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d2320726 https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d23207...
yumraj 8y ago
"Gandhi" (गांधी), not "Ghandi"
jogjayr 8y ago
Mohandas aka Mahatma Gandhi (not "Ghandi", please) went to law school in England and had a successful law practice in Apartheid-era South Africa. He was considered a pillar of the Indian community in SA, one of its major civic leaders. It's hard to believe he would've attained such respectability and influence within the community without achieving "conventional" success first. And his successes against the racist colonial government in SA were what built his reputation and gave him instant credibility when he returned to India.

BurningFrog 8y ago

I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem: Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, but we have almost no idea what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.

pjscott 8y ago
We've identified over a thousand genetic loci that predict educational attainment [1], though each one has only a very small effect. That's far from being all of them, of course. [1] https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2018-lee.pdf
why_only_15 8y ago
It literally specifies all these things in the article. There are thousands of genes that are all in part responsible and the study was initially performed across 20,000 people and then was replicated in independent studies.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  I'm sure they used all available knowledge. My point is that right now we know very little.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sonabinu 8y ago

Rich always have the advantage of better nutrition, information and resources (if parents don't have time, they hire tutors). Is it truly a genetic advantage or a socio-economic advantage? Is there a good way to hold all other variables as a constant in this study?

skookumchuck 8y ago
Rich parents also are more likely to show their kids how to handle money and get rich. See the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kiyosaki. Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely puts them at a serious disadvantage.
- mercer 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_...
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    Thanks for the info, I didn't know that about him. I've read his book, and the fundamental idea of looking at money differently is sound. I know I look at money very differently now than I did when I was young. I.e. I view it now as a tool rather than a scorecard.
    - mercer 8y ago
      Yeah, I can see that. I rather believe in the "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick" principle, so it's quite possible his advice is good, or at least part of it. Just figured it'd be good to know this about him.

kasperni 8y ago

Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others. I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is some bootstrap cash. You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds. Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.

asaph 8y ago
> Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who are university professors, doctors or succesfull (sic) entrepreneurs than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the others. Do you have any data to back this up?
- askafriend 8y ago
  I'm also curious. Strong claims like that require strong evidence. I'm not just going to take that comment at face value and neither should anyone else.
pedrosorio 8y ago
The article repeats several times something along the lines of "money trumps genes" at the beginning, but it does mention what you're saying later on when talking about why IQ tests were deceiving: "Such tests can’t be administered at conception, birth or infancy — before high-income parents have given their young children a head start by feeding them well, reading to them at higher rates and enrolling them in more activities. “Two people who are genetically similar can have strikingly different IQ test scores because the richer ones have invested more in their kids,” Papageorge said. When you look at the raw genetic potential of the two people, though, “you see they’re actually quite similar.”"

paulpauper 8y ago

Jordan Peterson says it's the opposite. I guess it also depends on how one defines 'rich'. If you're the only child of a multi-millionaire family, then you're in a much better financial position than being one of 3-5 children of a family that is only upper-middle class. But one cannot underestimate the power of having a high IQ though in terms of making wealth. You look at at all these successful people in STEM and start-ups, many from middle-class families and 2nd gen. immigrant families, and they tend to all have high IQs. Just a few days ago someone solved the 310 bitcoin challenge and made a cool $2 million. The person who solved it probably has a high IQ. Same for ppl who invested in bitcoin early. Again and again, with the possible exception of some actor and athletes, you find that with wealth, a high IQ is not far behind.

teratoma 8y ago
Jordan Peterson is a hack.* *He's not a data analyst, a behavioral scientist, or anything other than a public figure. A youtube personality's opinion doesn't matter in the real world.
Hydraulix989 8y ago
If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth. Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence), squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevitably decides to punch you in the gut, and tremendous sacrifices in terms of hard work, time, MORALITY (screwing people over and fighting hard to prevent others who are actively working against you from doing the same to you), and personal health. I think the fact that you can solve puzzles really well on a test doesn't really lend itself well to money making at all. There's FAR too much of a chance/luck component to making money to attribute it to IQ alone. Any time I've ever made money, I came back thinking wow, I was very lucky -- even though everyone is still biased towards themselves in terms of their own personal attributes or qualities (intelligence, hard work, savviness, hustling, etc.) when they make money, I can still recognize that yes, buying and selling crypto at the right time was almost entirely luck -- so was teaching myself how to code when I was 8 years old growing up in a rural area where everyone else thought it was a waste of time. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ. Often you'll find people who had the exact same amount of "talent" or worked just as hard doing exactly the same things as someone who has a lot of money but don't have anything to show for it. Right place, right time. Meanwhile, having money handed to you on a silver plate by virtue of your birth family means being able to accomplish all of the above without doing or sacrificing anything at all, and you even still have a free pass from society to still have an ego about it. Even worse, many people somehow see having money as a moral characteristic while selectively ignoring the very often immoral cost of acquisition.

romed 8y ago

Of course it is, especially in America. Just look at a guy like Brett Kavanaugh: a complete fuckup by objective standards, gets installed in the Supreme Court for life, for no other reason than he was born on that trajectory: rich kid, prep school, legacy admission to Yale.

deleteme12345 8y ago
A complete fuck up by objective standards? That's the most subjective thing I've heard so far. Everyone that has worked with him has praised him. What are you smoking?
- romed 8y ago
  The ABA downgraded him in 2005 from "well qualified" to "qualified", then in 2018 said that his confirmation to the Supreme Court was not in the best interests of the legal profession or the Association. Those are certainly the people who worked most closely with him. Objectively, you'd want to find one of the top handful of legal scholars in America to serve on the court. Kavanaugh is not one of those people. He has a scant record of legal scholarship. He does have a documented record of getting into fights in bars.
  - golemiprague 8y ago
    What's wrong with having a fight? It actually shows that he didn't grow up in some sterile middle class suburb but actually was exposed to all walks of life. I was in a fight when I was 19, didn't affect my life at all, what kind of person are you to even think a fight in your teenage years suppose to mean anything?
  - gamechangr 8y ago
    You may not like him, but you are confusing opinion with facts. Here are some facts: At least 13 of his opinions have been vindicated by the Supreme Court already. The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating: well-qualified. He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the Nation’s “second highest court,” for more than 12 years. He has written more than 300 opinions and heard more than 2,000 cases. He has taught for more than a decade at the Nation’s two top law schools, Yale and Harvard He served more than five years in the White House, including as White House Staff Secretary and as Associate White House Counsel. There are many many more. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/judge-brett-m-kavanaugh-exceptionally-qualified-deserving-nominee-supreme-court/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/judge-brett-...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ccnafr 8y ago

The understatement of the century

1999 8y ago

I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews: 1. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing: https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm . I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your place in society is the tradition of somewhere but I don't think it is America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination . 2. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else. Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before 1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based on the situation 30 years ago as well. The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
perfunctory 8y ago
I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?
- mikekij 8y ago
  A rational investor is concerned with risk-adjust returns after taxes. The fact that capital gains rates are lower than income rates allows an investor to accept a higher level of risk than if the two tax rates were lower.
  - 8y ago

lazyjones 8y ago

So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing typical political propaganda using fake science these days?

geocar 8y ago
"Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. In either case, here you go. [1]: https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-jus... [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/ [3]: https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]. We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using "academic success" as an intermediate predictor? > if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that education itself is not valuable. Straw man. It's not a valid (scientific) conclusion to apply the result of correlation studies on a large mixed group to selected subgroups and assume it will apply equally. IOW, rich people with college degree might not live longer than those without just because the general population does. But my point was something else: a better life is neither measured by wealth nor academic success or life expectancy at 25. It's entirely subjective and such click-baity titles are misleading. It should read "it's better for academic success to be born rich than gifted", but then it would't be sensationalist enough.
  - geocar 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sdinsn 8y ago

It's better to be born rich than gifted, if you think that college graduation rates are the number one most important thing in the world.

sunstone 8y ago

It's much more likely for a gifted person to become rich than it is for a rich person to become gifted.

jimnotgym 8y ago

This should be the tag line for politicians in the UK!

WhitneyLand 8y ago

The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point. Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted, educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages. It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of people in the latter category.

jstewartmobile 8y ago

For every silver spoon who flies through higher-ed to the gilded cage at the end of the rainbow, there are several more left back home--still living under daddy's shadow--duking it out with the others for a bigger share of the corpse. Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our souls.

badrabbit 8y ago

You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born rich might not amount to more than what they were born with. If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society ,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well in society and does not treat others well? All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not just financially , career wise or contributions to society.

starchild_3001 8y ago

Lot's of nonsense here. Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors and compare the two. Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure to the right kind of things). Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all drive success in life). What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.

richard___ 8y ago

How the hell is this study seen in a negative light? Genes, how fast your brain processes information, CANNOT be changed. That's just biology. Money, education, knowledge - these CAN be changed.