9 ms·

I don't understand

by hackernewds 4y ago

I don't understand

teekert 4y ago
I’d guess the 5% is some form of privileged elite. I see that.
- input_sh 4y ago
  To quote Stephen Jay Gould: > I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
  - eevilspock 4y ago
    But without the enticement of membership in the elite, with a greater share of society's wealth, power and privileges, no one would bother working hard to become doctors, lawyers, software developers and CEOs. We need a stratified society to have all these things the modern world gives us. It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work. It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business. Capitalism depends on inequality, and we depend on capitalism. This is logic of capitalism. This is our society's justification for incredible differences in pay and wealth.
    - marosgrego 4y ago
      What? One become a scientist because they are interested in things, or a doctor because they want to help people.
      - eevilspock 4y ago
        I was being rhetorical, echoing back SV's/tech's dominant ideology. For what I really think, see my replies to these threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14282791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14282791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451733
    - eesmith 4y ago
      > It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work. Why do rich people work? They don't need to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops. Slaves worked the American cotton fields - why did they work with no chance of membership in the elite? I'm pretty sure people in 1860 justified slavery with the same argument "It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business."
  - fortran77 4y ago
    Einstein had to flee his country to save his life. From the "Encyclopedia Britannica": > In December 1932 Einstein decided to leave Germany forever (he would never go back). It became obvious to Einstein that his life was in danger. A Nazi organization published a magazine with Einstein's picture and the caption “Not Yet Hanged” on the cover. There was even a price on his head. He certainly had an uphill struggle and wasn't simply handed everything because of some innate privilege.
- Aidevah 4y ago
  If you look at the list for the most famous people of all time, and especially for men[1], a large majority seem to have originated (and even remained all their life) outside what most people would consider the "privileged elite". Notably absent are some of the wealthiest individuals of all time, Crassus, Jakob Fugger, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller. Of course, it doesn't disprove being born in favourable circumstances can and will affect your quality of life. But this list seems largely indifferent to how much money or power daddy has. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01369-4/tables/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01369-4/tables/3
DocTomoe 4y ago
How many potential geniuses ended up herding yaks, or becoming chemical process workers, or died in some pointless war as cannon fodder, or in some hospital due to substandard care? Potential is cheap and abundant. Using it is what changes the world.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  > Using it is what changes the world. Being recognized for it is what changes the world.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Recognition is overvalued: It's nice for the individual who receives it, but it comes after the fact and is ultimately neglectable. Virtually no-one knows who came up with the paperclip (Johan Vaaler), and still it is one of the world-changing inventions.
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      Not recognition with regard to fame, recognition with regard to your peers in the field.
davidguetta 4y ago
Basically economic factors are a way bigger source of discrimination than gender will even be. Way harder to fix because no one wants to do affirmative action for young boys born in trailer parks.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mitchdoogle 4y ago
    This is a conversation and people are allowed to bring their knowledge, experience and opinions to the table. This thread started from a map showing the apparent locations of famous persons' birthplaces. I don't see how its any less relevant to steer the conversation towards economic inequality than it is towards gender inequality. If you'd rather talk about "children in trailer parks", then go ahead - it's the same point.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      No, "boys in trailer parks" is decidedly not the same point as women being ignored. The fact that they are both equally relevant makes it utterly stupid that they are being talked about in the same place. If a separate top level comment were made about how poor people aren't on the map then I wouldn't be arguing that. But as a reply to a point about how women aren't on the map, you aren't doing much other than making it about men, by talking about how some men aren't on the map either. It's some "all lives matter" bullshit and should be recognized as such.
      - seneca 4y ago
        As the person responding to you said, this is a conversation. It's not here for you to dictate the proper direction of. It's for people who are curious to share ideas back and forth. I personally find the responses significantly more interesting that your insults. If you are only interested in shutting down conversations that don't fit your preferred narrative, perhaps you are the problem.

I don't understand

teekert 4y ago

I’d guess the 5% is some form of privileged elite. I see that.

input_sh 4y ago
To quote Stephen Jay Gould: > I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
- eevilspock 4y ago
  But without the enticement of membership in the elite, with a greater share of society's wealth, power and privileges, no one would bother working hard to become doctors, lawyers, software developers and CEOs. We need a stratified society to have all these things the modern world gives us. It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work. It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business. Capitalism depends on inequality, and we depend on capitalism. This is logic of capitalism. This is our society's justification for incredible differences in pay and wealth.
  - marosgrego 4y ago
    What? One become a scientist because they are interested in things, or a doctor because they want to help people.
    - eevilspock 4y ago
      I was being rhetorical, echoing back SV's/tech's dominant ideology. For what I really think, see my replies to these threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15659455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14282791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14282791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10451733
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > It is only the desire to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops that spurs people to work. Why do rich people work? They don't need to escape the cotton fields and sweatshops. Slaves worked the American cotton fields - why did they work with no chance of membership in the elite? I'm pretty sure people in 1860 justified slavery with the same argument "It is the only reason that our world has seen amazing advancements in science, technology and business."
- fortran77 4y ago
  Einstein had to flee his country to save his life. From the "Encyclopedia Britannica": > In December 1932 Einstein decided to leave Germany forever (he would never go back). It became obvious to Einstein that his life was in danger. A Nazi organization published a magazine with Einstein's picture and the caption “Not Yet Hanged” on the cover. There was even a price on his head. He certainly had an uphill struggle and wasn't simply handed everything because of some innate privilege.
Aidevah 4y ago
If you look at the list for the most famous people of all time, and especially for men[1], a large majority seem to have originated (and even remained all their life) outside what most people would consider the "privileged elite". Notably absent are some of the wealthiest individuals of all time, Crassus, Jakob Fugger, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller. Of course, it doesn't disprove being born in favourable circumstances can and will affect your quality of life. But this list seems largely indifferent to how much money or power daddy has. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01369-4/tables/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01369-4/tables/3

DocTomoe 4y ago

How many potential geniuses ended up herding yaks, or becoming chemical process workers, or died in some pointless war as cannon fodder, or in some hospital due to substandard care? Potential is cheap and abundant. Using it is what changes the world.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
> Using it is what changes the world. Being recognized for it is what changes the world.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Recognition is overvalued: It's nice for the individual who receives it, but it comes after the fact and is ultimately neglectable. Virtually no-one knows who came up with the paperclip (Johan Vaaler), and still it is one of the world-changing inventions.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    Not recognition with regard to fame, recognition with regard to your peers in the field.

davidguetta 4y ago

Basically economic factors are a way bigger source of discrimination than gender will even be. Way harder to fix because no one wants to do affirmative action for young boys born in trailer parks.

mxkopy 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mitchdoogle 4y ago
  This is a conversation and people are allowed to bring their knowledge, experience and opinions to the table. This thread started from a map showing the apparent locations of famous persons' birthplaces. I don't see how its any less relevant to steer the conversation towards economic inequality than it is towards gender inequality. If you'd rather talk about "children in trailer parks", then go ahead - it's the same point.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    No, "boys in trailer parks" is decidedly not the same point as women being ignored. The fact that they are both equally relevant makes it utterly stupid that they are being talked about in the same place. If a separate top level comment were made about how poor people aren't on the map then I wouldn't be arguing that. But as a reply to a point about how women aren't on the map, you aren't doing much other than making it about men, by talking about how some men aren't on the map either. It's some "all lives matter" bullshit and should be recognized as such.
    - seneca 4y ago
      As the person responding to you said, this is a conversation. It's not here for you to dictate the proper direction of. It's for people who are curious to share ideas back and forth. I personally find the responses significantly more interesting that your insults. If you are only interested in shutting down conversations that don't fit your preferred narrative, perhaps you are the problem.