3 ms·

It's not a brave or iconoclastic thought; it's actually incredibly common: Throughout history the wealthy have thought of themselves as superior. If they got l

It's not a brave or iconoclastic thought; it's actually incredibly common: Throughout history the wealthy have thought of themselves as superior. If they got lucky, it was because they were "super-elite." No one's going to win a nurture-or-nature argument but there's a clear self-interest in these situations to call nature what was, at least in part, nurture.

jdminhbg 5y ago
He's not talking about the wealthy, he's talking about scientists, most of whom are not rich, or at least not "super-elite" level rich.
- david927 5y ago
  Oh, he's talking about himself and his friends too, make no mistake. In nurture-vs-nature, those who struggle to achieve something understand how large a role nurture plays, and those who win the "circumstance lottery" tend to insist that it was bestowed on them directly from God. It's like talking about how there are "just a certain number of super-elite" players of pickle ball. It's conflating datasets of those who have been given access to the entire spectrum of attributes necessary to know and be good at pickle ball, with the vast seas of those who haven't. How can you say it's rare based on such a small data sample? If you were a pickle ball champion, would you really brag about how, "Let's face it, there are only a couple of us; we're just that good."
  - jdminhbg 5y ago
    This seems like it's going beyond a simple uncharitable reading and straight into psychoanalysis-from-a-distance.
    - david927 5y ago
      Could it be that he phrased it poorly? Of course. But if you're unfamiliar with the hubris and elitism that runs wildly unfettered in the Bay Area -- well, lucky you.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > he's talking about himself and his friends too No he’s not. He’s talking about scientists. You are putting words in his mouth.
achillesheels 5y ago
Irrespective of the self-rationalization, if their success is conditional on their starting place, how can one judge it to be “lucky”? It must necessarily be predetermined, correct?

jdminhbg 5y ago

He's not talking about the wealthy, he's talking about scientists, most of whom are not rich, or at least not "super-elite" level rich.

david927 5y ago
Oh, he's talking about himself and his friends too, make no mistake. In nurture-vs-nature, those who struggle to achieve something understand how large a role nurture plays, and those who win the "circumstance lottery" tend to insist that it was bestowed on them directly from God. It's like talking about how there are "just a certain number of super-elite" players of pickle ball. It's conflating datasets of those who have been given access to the entire spectrum of attributes necessary to know and be good at pickle ball, with the vast seas of those who haven't. How can you say it's rare based on such a small data sample? If you were a pickle ball champion, would you really brag about how, "Let's face it, there are only a couple of us; we're just that good."
- jdminhbg 5y ago
  This seems like it's going beyond a simple uncharitable reading and straight into psychoanalysis-from-a-distance.
  - david927 5y ago
    Could it be that he phrased it poorly? Of course. But if you're unfamiliar with the hubris and elitism that runs wildly unfettered in the Bay Area -- well, lucky you.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > he's talking about himself and his friends too No he’s not. He’s talking about scientists. You are putting words in his mouth.

achillesheels 5y ago

Irrespective of the self-rationalization, if their success is conditional on their starting place, how can one judge it to be “lucky”? It must necessarily be predetermined, correct?