6 ms·

So being "gifted" should factor in? What if I and many others care about character and empathy much more than any intellectual capacity? It's always been the i

So being "gifted" should factor in? What if I and many others care about character and empathy much more than any intellectual capacity? It's always been the idea and should be that those who do right,act honest and work hard even if they don't work smart, should have upward mobility, as in regardless of birth you can enter the lower mid-class tier. Obviously your talent and skill should and would determine your mobility to upper and upper-middle class.

sokoloff 6y ago
That was just one example, but yes, I’d certainly hope that being particularly gifted in some dimension of life would factor in to outcomes. Maybe that’s having a cannon of a pitching arm, outstanding musical or singing ability, or particularly strong academic performance. Society benefits when the best scientists are working on science, the best mathematicians at math, the best musicians are performing, and even when the best athletes are playing pro sports. I’d like these talented people to be able to develop, showcase, and benefit from their talents without regard to who their parents are.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  And if you’re not exceptional in that narrow band kick rocks?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    If you’re the average person, I think it’s reasonable to expect an average outcome. In the modern world that should still be quite an enjoyable life, but for self-evident reasons, I would not expect everyone to have an above-average life.
    - akhilcacharya 6y ago
      Yikes. Mask really coming off here. I hope those of us that didn't go to MIT like you have a place in this society.
      - esotericn 6y ago
        He's literally saying that a 49th percentile person will definitionally only be able to have a 49th percentile life under any system. Well, I suppose you could perform random shuffling. 50% of people will still end up with a below average outcome, though.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        Indeed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem
        akhilcacharya 6y ago
        Except of course he only really provided examples of “gifted” people breaking through. I’m not gifted and have the college diploma to prove it - where does he think the ceiling should be for me I wonder?
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I'm not even sure your argument here is in good faith, but I'll take one more shot at it. Holding a 4-year bachelors degree puts you in about the top 1/3rd in academic outcomes (meaning you personally are 50/50 to be in the top 1/6th). It's not for me nor anyone else to define your ceiling, but I would expect based on the limited data presented and, to the extent that academics is a predictor of outcome, that your outcome would be quite likely to be above the average. That you're engaged on news.yc is another generally positively correlated term I would think.
        esotericn 6y ago
        You're the one talking about ceilings. His point is that true social mobility would be literally hitting the random button repeatedly. It's obviously not a workable idea. Someone has to lose, even if you perform a magical full reset once per year, in any given year half of the people will be below average. The goal of course is that we make sure that everyone has a decent life even if they're not at the top. I think you've jumped on his comment and assumed that he doesn't care at all about anyone who's not in the top N% which isn't a charitable reading.
    - unclebucknasty 6y ago
      So, tying this into your previous comment, you've said that society is better off when "parents scrimp, save, and sacrifice" for their children, but many should expect their children to have average or even subpar/unenjoyable lives, regardless of that sacrifice. Doesn't sound like a desirable society.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        What’s the alternative? That parents don’t invest their time, money, and attention on their children, instead hedonistically consuming every last bit of whatever they have for their own adult pursuits? I see every increment of improvement a parent (or other guiding figure) helps a child to achieve as being like a small hammer tap improving the future for that child and the society in which they will go on to live. The fact that, regardless of anything anyone does, many will lead an average life is just straightforward application of the Intermediate Value Theorem. To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable”; in fact, I tried to quite explicitly/literally say the opposite, but perhaps my words were chosen poorly or otherwise misled the reader. A large number of these small hammer taps though can improve that average greatly over time, as we’ve experienced over the generations since humans have lived in societies. In about 14 generations we went from first proving the Earth revolved around the sun to landing humans on the moon. Fourteen! Four generations from the patent of the telephone to the release of NCSA Mosaic. Four! One more generation and most of us are carrying around Star Trek communicators that we can use to argue with each other about how to best shape educational processes for societal benefit. The pace and inexorability of academic and technical progress blows my mind. I think we should be very cautious about disrupting that in the pursuit of perfect equality of outcome.
        unclebucknasty 6y ago
        >What’s the alternative? That parents don’t invest their time, money, and attention on their children, instead hedonistically consuming every last bit of whatever they have for their own adult pursuits? Of course parents should invest in their kids and try to give them every opportunity. But, there's a big difference between parents investing in their kids and advocating a status quo that every parent "scrimp, save, and sacrifice" to give their kids a fighting chance. It's a poor design. One, it will invariably leave some kids behind, especially given our current wealth disparities. And, yes, even some "gifted" kids will be left behind. Two, giving kids opportunities shouldn't bury parents and push them to the brink. Education is too high. Housing is too high, etc. In many cities, housing costs are driven by a desire for areas with better public schools, pushing them so high that they are out of reach for many. So, no amount of scrimping, sacrificing, etc. will allow people of certain income levels to provide their kids certain opportunities. They're doing these things just to survive. Three, there is an opportunity threshold that provides for a minimum reasonable expectation for a good quality life. Beyond that, it's largely incremental. For too many, that minimum threshold is uncrossable, irrespective of their best efforts. And, this doesn't even speak to the fact that stressed out parents working multiple jobs to provide these opportunities spend less time with their kids--that being a proven marker of outcomes. The result: what you advocate is unhealthy and unworkable. This "scrimp & sacrifice" scheme is sub-optimal for both personal fulfillment and maximizing social contributions. Both things are necessary for a happy, thriving society. Elsewhere you said you'd like to "ensure people of all conditions can develop their potential". Advocating that each parent scrimp & sacrifice is in direct opposition to this. >To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable” You also said: >If you’re the average person, I think it’s reasonable to expect an average outcome. In the modern world that should still be quite an enjoyable life If average people have average outcomes, leading to an enjoyable life, then it stands to reason that "below-average" people will have below average outcomes, leading to...what exactly? I think you want to sweep that under the rug b/c it doesn't comport with your "hey, if all parents just scrimp & sacrifice everything will be OK" proposition. In all, your theories about how things should work necessarily omit the existence of a large portion of the population: everyone is somehow "average" and above, providing an "enjoyable" life for all, and parents investing in their kids means foregoing one extra Starbucks run per-week.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  You don't get it. This isn't about society benefiting but society stabilizing. If someone is dumb as bricks and has no meaningful talents or interests they use to be able to find some hard labor,manual work or low level trade jobs that lets them enter the lower middle class (under $50k/yr iirc). If a person is talented they would fare far better. This is very practical in the richest country.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    This claim would imply that, at some point in American history, every single person below the middle class was just a lazy bum who couldn't be bothered to get a good job. I'm not sure that's true and I kinda suspect you don't think so either.
    - badrabbit 6y ago
      I don't think so either, the operating phrase there is "even if" ,and no,that excludes lazy people and criminals. Honest,law abiding and hard working would translate to a livable life however below average it may be. And it has always been a dream that only some live up to. For many classes of society,this has never been true.
      - throwafellow 6y ago
        If you chronically underpay and exploit people of lower class who aren't dumb as bricks then you create a class of lazy people and criminals who act that way because they are aware that they have no other choices.
        brmgb 6y ago
        "what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” Thomas More, Utopia
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > some hard labor,manual work or low level trade jobs That kind of work is still valued, just less so than before. It makes sense to supplement low incomes with UBI or negative income tax, so that no one is denied a tolerably comfortable life. Our social safety nets are totally unfit for the present world, they're still built for the assumption that high-paying manual work is everywhere.

sokoloff 6y ago

That was just one example, but yes, I’d certainly hope that being particularly gifted in some dimension of life would factor in to outcomes. Maybe that’s having a cannon of a pitching arm, outstanding musical or singing ability, or particularly strong academic performance. Society benefits when the best scientists are working on science, the best mathematicians at math, the best musicians are performing, and even when the best athletes are playing pro sports. I’d like these talented people to be able to develop, showcase, and benefit from their talents without regard to who their parents are.

akhilcacharya 6y ago
And if you’re not exceptional in that narrow band kick rocks?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If you’re the average person, I think it’s reasonable to expect an average outcome. In the modern world that should still be quite an enjoyable life, but for self-evident reasons, I would not expect everyone to have an above-average life.
  - akhilcacharya 6y ago
    Yikes. Mask really coming off here. I hope those of us that didn't go to MIT like you have a place in this society.
    - esotericn 6y ago
      He's literally saying that a 49th percentile person will definitionally only be able to have a 49th percentile life under any system. Well, I suppose you could perform random shuffling. 50% of people will still end up with a below average outcome, though.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Indeed. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem
      - akhilcacharya 6y ago
        Except of course he only really provided examples of “gifted” people breaking through. I’m not gifted and have the college diploma to prove it - where does he think the ceiling should be for me I wonder?
        sokoloff 6y ago
        I'm not even sure your argument here is in good faith, but I'll take one more shot at it. Holding a 4-year bachelors degree puts you in about the top 1/3rd in academic outcomes (meaning you personally are 50/50 to be in the top 1/6th). It's not for me nor anyone else to define your ceiling, but I would expect based on the limited data presented and, to the extent that academics is a predictor of outcome, that your outcome would be quite likely to be above the average. That you're engaged on news.yc is another generally positively correlated term I would think.
        esotericn 6y ago
        You're the one talking about ceilings. His point is that true social mobility would be literally hitting the random button repeatedly. It's obviously not a workable idea. Someone has to lose, even if you perform a magical full reset once per year, in any given year half of the people will be below average. The goal of course is that we make sure that everyone has a decent life even if they're not at the top. I think you've jumped on his comment and assumed that he doesn't care at all about anyone who's not in the top N% which isn't a charitable reading.
  - unclebucknasty 6y ago
    So, tying this into your previous comment, you've said that society is better off when "parents scrimp, save, and sacrifice" for their children, but many should expect their children to have average or even subpar/unenjoyable lives, regardless of that sacrifice. Doesn't sound like a desirable society.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      What’s the alternative? That parents don’t invest their time, money, and attention on their children, instead hedonistically consuming every last bit of whatever they have for their own adult pursuits? I see every increment of improvement a parent (or other guiding figure) helps a child to achieve as being like a small hammer tap improving the future for that child and the society in which they will go on to live. The fact that, regardless of anything anyone does, many will lead an average life is just straightforward application of the Intermediate Value Theorem. To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable”; in fact, I tried to quite explicitly/literally say the opposite, but perhaps my words were chosen poorly or otherwise misled the reader. A large number of these small hammer taps though can improve that average greatly over time, as we’ve experienced over the generations since humans have lived in societies. In about 14 generations we went from first proving the Earth revolved around the sun to landing humans on the moon. Fourteen! Four generations from the patent of the telephone to the release of NCSA Mosaic. Four! One more generation and most of us are carrying around Star Trek communicators that we can use to argue with each other about how to best shape educational processes for societal benefit. The pace and inexorability of academic and technical progress blows my mind. I think we should be very cautious about disrupting that in the pursuit of perfect equality of outcome.
      - unclebucknasty 6y ago
        >What’s the alternative? That parents don’t invest their time, money, and attention on their children, instead hedonistically consuming every last bit of whatever they have for their own adult pursuits? Of course parents should invest in their kids and try to give them every opportunity. But, there's a big difference between parents investing in their kids and advocating a status quo that every parent "scrimp, save, and sacrifice" to give their kids a fighting chance. It's a poor design. One, it will invariably leave some kids behind, especially given our current wealth disparities. And, yes, even some "gifted" kids will be left behind. Two, giving kids opportunities shouldn't bury parents and push them to the brink. Education is too high. Housing is too high, etc. In many cities, housing costs are driven by a desire for areas with better public schools, pushing them so high that they are out of reach for many. So, no amount of scrimping, sacrificing, etc. will allow people of certain income levels to provide their kids certain opportunities. They're doing these things just to survive. Three, there is an opportunity threshold that provides for a minimum reasonable expectation for a good quality life. Beyond that, it's largely incremental. For too many, that minimum threshold is uncrossable, irrespective of their best efforts. And, this doesn't even speak to the fact that stressed out parents working multiple jobs to provide these opportunities spend less time with their kids--that being a proven marker of outcomes. The result: what you advocate is unhealthy and unworkable. This "scrimp & sacrifice" scheme is sub-optimal for both personal fulfillment and maximizing social contributions. Both things are necessary for a happy, thriving society. Elsewhere you said you'd like to "ensure people of all conditions can develop their potential". Advocating that each parent scrimp & sacrifice is in direct opposition to this. >To be clear, I said “average” not “unenjoyable” You also said: >If you’re the average person, I think it’s reasonable to expect an average outcome. In the modern world that should still be quite an enjoyable life If average people have average outcomes, leading to an enjoyable life, then it stands to reason that "below-average" people will have below average outcomes, leading to...what exactly? I think you want to sweep that under the rug b/c it doesn't comport with your "hey, if all parents just scrimp & sacrifice everything will be OK" proposition. In all, your theories about how things should work necessarily omit the existence of a large portion of the population: everyone is somehow "average" and above, providing an "enjoyable" life for all, and parents investing in their kids means foregoing one extra Starbucks run per-week.
badrabbit 6y ago
You don't get it. This isn't about society benefiting but society stabilizing. If someone is dumb as bricks and has no meaningful talents or interests they use to be able to find some hard labor,manual work or low level trade jobs that lets them enter the lower middle class (under $50k/yr iirc). If a person is talented they would fare far better. This is very practical in the richest country.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  This claim would imply that, at some point in American history, every single person below the middle class was just a lazy bum who couldn't be bothered to get a good job. I'm not sure that's true and I kinda suspect you don't think so either.
  - badrabbit 6y ago
    I don't think so either, the operating phrase there is "even if" ,and no,that excludes lazy people and criminals. Honest,law abiding and hard working would translate to a livable life however below average it may be. And it has always been a dream that only some live up to. For many classes of society,this has never been true.
    - throwafellow 6y ago
      If you chronically underpay and exploit people of lower class who aren't dumb as bricks then you create a class of lazy people and criminals who act that way because they are aware that they have no other choices.
      - brmgb 6y ago
        "what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them.” Thomas More, Utopia
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > some hard labor,manual work or low level trade jobs That kind of work is still valued, just less so than before. It makes sense to supplement low incomes with UBI or negative income tax, so that no one is denied a tolerably comfortable life. Our social safety nets are totally unfit for the present world, they're still built for the assumption that high-paying manual work is everywhere.