4 ms·

No, I think my whole point is that I'm talking about people who got good grades as kids versus people who got bad grades as kids. Your grades say as much about

No, I think my whole point is that I'm talking about people who got good grades as kids versus people who got bad grades as kids. Your grades say as much about your intelligence as you think it does. My point about video game developers is that there are plenty of people who are really smart but got bad grades, so they got different opportunities but turned out really successful. But if you got bad grades, you're pretty much guaranteed to not be working at Google. It's about a difference of opportunities, and how it relates to personal stories (like this candidate's), and how your opportunities / personal stories can affect your ability to lead.

lawrenceyan 8y ago
Okay I see your point. You believe that “good grades” people, or people that have a led a relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented at navigating the existing systems that permeate today’s society, lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Is this an accurate understanding of what you’re trying to say?
- doctorpangloss 8y ago
  > relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented I don't really believe that. > lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Not really about that either. Looking at things the way you do is a very "good grades" point of view. When I was talking about "bad grades" people problems as government problems, I meant like being a beneficiary of a social assistance program like SNAP. The only person Andrew Yang regularly interacts with on SNAP is his kids' nanny. He's never lived that life, never received government assistance, practically no one in "good grades" society has during their adult life. The nanny didn't fail to integrate into "existing systems." She doesn't lack "natural talent." An idea of "good grades" society is systemizing comparisons like that, that one person is better than another at something, whereas government leadership is fundamentally about one person-one vote and preserving the commons.

lawrenceyan 8y ago

Okay I see your point. You believe that “good grades” people, or people that have a led a relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented at navigating the existing systems that permeate today’s society, lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Is this an accurate understanding of what you’re trying to say?

doctorpangloss 8y ago
> relatively linear / easy path to success due to being naturally talented I don't really believe that. > lack the understanding for how to properly lead the people in society who don’t integrate as well into these existing systems. Not really about that either. Looking at things the way you do is a very "good grades" point of view. When I was talking about "bad grades" people problems as government problems, I meant like being a beneficiary of a social assistance program like SNAP. The only person Andrew Yang regularly interacts with on SNAP is his kids' nanny. He's never lived that life, never received government assistance, practically no one in "good grades" society has during their adult life. The nanny didn't fail to integrate into "existing systems." She doesn't lack "natural talent." An idea of "good grades" society is systemizing comparisons like that, that one person is better than another at something, whereas government leadership is fundamentally about one person-one vote and preserving the commons.