4 ms·

If intelligence is mostly education, pandering to the low achievers is cruel. Instead of giving them the means to succeed (those means exist, as proven by their

If intelligence is mostly education, pandering to the low achievers is cruel. Instead of giving them the means to succeed (those means exist, as proven by their peers), they get handouts from the "lucky" people. Completely unacceptable, Education does not need to be perfect, I had the same teachers as my peers, many of them did far worse than me. If it is truly purely random chance that I learned far more than they did, not teaching them is a bizarre form of cruelty. >luck of the genetic lottery What? Genes are not luck, you literally are a genetic combination of your parents. Sure, there is variation, but your parents determine what the mean of that variation is. E.g. height is absolutely related to your parents height, so are many illnesses.

helpfulmandrill 3y ago
If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck, then probably nothing counts as luck for you. From the perspective of the person "receiving" genes and their moral deservingness, if they aren't purely random, they might as well be. In terms of education, I agree that if we have the means to do better then it is cruel not to. But we probably don't, and aren't likely to soon, short of a fully completed science of the human brain. The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >But we probably don' We do. As is evident by the existence of many highly educated people. >The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point. It does. Unless there is some non-environmental difference. >If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck They aren't luck since they are predictable to a certain extent. It isn't luck that you get a high paying job after geting a good education either.

helpfulmandrill 3y ago

If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck, then probably nothing counts as luck for you. From the perspective of the person "receiving" genes and their moral deservingness, if they aren't purely random, they might as well be. In terms of education, I agree that if we have the means to do better then it is cruel not to. But we probably don't, and aren't likely to soon, short of a fully completed science of the human brain. The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point.

constantcrying 3y ago
>But we probably don' We do. As is evident by the existence of many highly educated people. >The success of my peers absolutely does not prove that the means exist that would work for me, in my particular circumstances and given my particular starting point. It does. Unless there is some non-environmental difference. >If your definition of "luck" is so restrictive as to say that a person's genes aren't luck They aren't luck since they are predictable to a certain extent. It isn't luck that you get a high paying job after geting a good education either.