6 ms·

It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty. What if those charitable dollars helped someone in an absolute destitute situation, who later turned ou

by zmitri 15y ago

It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty. What if those charitable dollars helped someone in an absolute destitute situation, who later turned out to be a success? Let me give you an example. In New York there is a non profit called "East New York Farms." If you aren't aware, East New York is one the roughest places you can come across in Brooklyn. They provide kids with the chance to run an organic garden from both the operational/agricultural side and the business side of things. And on top of that, they sell it in the local neighborhood. I talked to a girl who didn't know what broccoli was before she did this program. Her parents just gave her honeybuns from the corner store for dinner. Now they have Whole Foods quality vegetables in the middle of a destitute area for cheap, and it services the community. https://goodkarmaapp.com/np/enyfarms https://goodkarmaapp.com/np/enyfarms Think of the marginal increase a dollar creates there vs going to a kid from a top university.

vibrunazo 15y ago
I think you've misread his post. He's talking about donating what they have now VS donating more money after they get richer in the future. He's not talking about donating to charities VS donating to kids from top universities. The second would just be a consequence of the first.
- _delirium 15y ago
  When do you stop, though? If you take the "first I'll get rich, then work on charitable causes" route, and Andreessen Horowitz aren't yet rich enough to qualify, what level is rich enough? Does it have to be $100 billion or something before you're allowed to decide it's time to start diverting some money to charity?
  - SamReidHughes 15y ago
    This is especially true assuming that the economy gets better over time, that the poor of today are worse off than the poor of tomorrow will be.
daenz 15y ago
> It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty. Examples of genius that didn't thrive because of poverty? The example you gave is about kids learning to sell vegetables. Are their studies about geniuses that didn't achieve their best work because they were poor?
- shantanubala 15y ago
  That's not a very good question -- how can we know someone is a "genius" unless they have the resources to thrive? We can debate on the meaning of genius, but regardless of how you view it, a person simply cannot reach their full potential if they have to constantly worry about feeding themselves or a family. Before we can even identify someone as a genius, they have to have been successful in some way. For them to be successful, they have to have access to at least some basic resources (there are "rags to riches" stories, but I'm not sure it's even possible to argue that those are the norm). So how would you even begin answering your question? How do we identify someone as a genius even before they've actually succeeded at something? Isn't there some massive selection bias there? Since the only difference between a wealthy person and a person raised in poverty is income/upbringing (poverty doesn't change your genes, does it?), I think it's a safe assumption that we're missing quite a few "geniuses" because of poverty.
  - daenz 15y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for examples that back his claim "It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty." The statement he made is unnecessary to his overall point, which is that charity can help people. His claim about the "unbelievable" number of geniuses being squandered has no real basis in fact.
    - shantanubala 15y ago
      But aren't you ignoring a potential reason why it has no "basis in fact"? The reason why we can't find examples of "genius being wasted in poverty" is simple: how can we identify someone as a "genius" until they've actually produced something notable? How can someone with little to no resources produce something notable? It's possible, but the odds are skewed a lot. The statement was very necessary. If we operate on the assumption that a person's ability is largely defined by their upbringing (and from what we understand so far in the social sciences, this is a pretty fair assumption to make!), it's essential to point out that poverty prevents people from achieving their full potential, and the number of people it affects is in the billions. Just because it can't be accurately measured doesn't automatically make the point invalid: if you're trying to argue that the population of (over a billion!) people without ready access to food or clean water doesn't contain the same number of potential geniuses as our population, then you have the burden of proof because every bit of understanding we have about nature vs. nurture indicates that improving a person's upbringing allows them to accomplish more. In other words, he doesn't have to prove with hard statistics that poverty prevents genius from emerging, because our existing knowledge of human behavior and development clearly demonstrates this without having to answer: "exactly how many geniuses were lost?"

by zmitri 15y ago

vibrunazo 15y ago

I think you've misread his post. He's talking about donating what they have now VS donating more money after they get richer in the future. He's not talking about donating to charities VS donating to kids from top universities. The second would just be a consequence of the first.

_delirium 15y ago
When do you stop, though? If you take the "first I'll get rich, then work on charitable causes" route, and Andreessen Horowitz aren't yet rich enough to qualify, what level is rich enough? Does it have to be $100 billion or something before you're allowed to decide it's time to start diverting some money to charity?
- SamReidHughes 15y ago
  This is especially true assuming that the economy gets better over time, that the poor of today are worse off than the poor of tomorrow will be.

daenz 15y ago

> It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty. Examples of genius that didn't thrive because of poverty? The example you gave is about kids learning to sell vegetables. Are their studies about geniuses that didn't achieve their best work because they were poor?

shantanubala 15y ago
That's not a very good question -- how can we know someone is a "genius" unless they have the resources to thrive? We can debate on the meaning of genius, but regardless of how you view it, a person simply cannot reach their full potential if they have to constantly worry about feeding themselves or a family. Before we can even identify someone as a genius, they have to have been successful in some way. For them to be successful, they have to have access to at least some basic resources (there are "rags to riches" stories, but I'm not sure it's even possible to argue that those are the norm). So how would you even begin answering your question? How do we identify someone as a genius even before they've actually succeeded at something? Isn't there some massive selection bias there? Since the only difference between a wealthy person and a person raised in poverty is income/upbringing (poverty doesn't change your genes, does it?), I think it's a safe assumption that we're missing quite a few "geniuses" because of poverty.
- daenz 15y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for examples that back his claim "It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty." The statement he made is unnecessary to his overall point, which is that charity can help people. His claim about the "unbelievable" number of geniuses being squandered has no real basis in fact.
  - shantanubala 15y ago
    But aren't you ignoring a potential reason why it has no "basis in fact"? The reason why we can't find examples of "genius being wasted in poverty" is simple: how can we identify someone as a "genius" until they've actually produced something notable? How can someone with little to no resources produce something notable? It's possible, but the odds are skewed a lot. The statement was very necessary. If we operate on the assumption that a person's ability is largely defined by their upbringing (and from what we understand so far in the social sciences, this is a pretty fair assumption to make!), it's essential to point out that poverty prevents people from achieving their full potential, and the number of people it affects is in the billions. Just because it can't be accurately measured doesn't automatically make the point invalid: if you're trying to argue that the population of (over a billion!) people without ready access to food or clean water doesn't contain the same number of potential geniuses as our population, then you have the burden of proof because every bit of understanding we have about nature vs. nurture indicates that improving a person's upbringing allows them to accomplish more. In other words, he doesn't have to prove with hard statistics that poverty prevents genius from emerging, because our existing knowledge of human behavior and development clearly demonstrates this without having to answer: "exactly how many geniuses were lost?"