4 ms·

> But there are also plenty of counterexamples of people who didn't have rich parents, didn't live in good school districts, and did it on their own. I know a p

> But there are also plenty of counterexamples of people who didn't have rich parents, didn't live in good school districts, and did it on their own. I know a person just like that, and she paid for school on her own working fast food shifts at night and full time in the summer, and now has a great job in biotech. $anecdote++; Yes, but those people are playing on "hard" mode, so to speak. More power to them, but it's unreasonable to imply that all people in poor socioeconomic circumstances will be able to do the same. EDIT (reply to below): Like I said, they're playing on "hard" mode. You cannot expect all or even most people playing on "hard" mode to achieve the same things that people playing on "easy" mode can achieve (people like me living in an affluent suburb, whose parents are upper-middle class, who went to fantastic local schools filled with other upper-middle class students, whose parents can afford to pay for college and any educational expense, etc.)

Domenic_S 14y ago
> it's unreasonable to imply that all people in poor socioeconomic circumstances will be able to do the same. Why?
- ZachPruckowski 14y ago
  Two reasons: First, while it's not entirely a zero-sum game, there's a considerable competitiveness aspect - there aren't enough college slots or scholarships to accommodate everyone getting a good degree from a strong school, and if there were, there wouldn't be enough jobs to hire them into. So at various points, people are going to not make the cut. Do we simply say "well, if you're not in the top X% of the nation you'll have to make do on $10/hour?" Secondly, because we can't simply wave our wands and make everyone 15-30 IQ points smarter. Getting every poor child to be as motivated and intelligent as that anecdote is at least as large a problem as income inequality generally. It's like saying "I've got a cure for cancer, but it requires time travel" - you've just reduced a Very Hard problem to a different Very Hard problem, which is a solid achievement but doesn't actually solve anything. EDIT: And Thirdly, why should the answer be that poor people have to work their asses off to catch up just because they made the wrong choice of parents? It's like a race where some contestants have to carry dumbbells - it's great that they can actually succeed, but it's still miles and miles from fair.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > So at various points, people are going to not make the cut. Do we simply say "well, if you're not in the top X% of the nation you'll have to make do on $10/hour?" False dilemma. The choices are not "either get a good degree from a strong school, or make $10/hour forever". > we can't simply wave our wands and make everyone 15-30 IQ points smarter I'm not sure what your point is here. > why should the answer be that poor people have to work their asses off to catch up just because they made the wrong choice of parents I wasn't arguing that they should, just that they could.
    - ZachPruckowski 14y ago
      >False dilemma. The choices are not "either get a good degree from a strong school, or make $10/hour forever". You're right that it's not yet that stark. Nonetheless, while we need a system which encourages, motivates, and rewards the people who succeed, we also need a system which doesn't abandon the people who don't make the cut. We can't just simply say "well, everyone had a shot" and leave it at that. There are millions of Americans who are working poor, and tens of millions more who are still struggling to get by in the land of plenty. >I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that just because there are ways out for people who are unusually intelligent and unusually diligent doesn't solve the societal inequity, because not everyone can take advantage of those outs unless they suddenly get a lot smarter en masse. Again, even if we perfect meritocracy and all the incentives, we can't ignore the people who don't have IQs over 115 or whatever[1] [1] - or if IQ is an inadequate measurement, whatever measurement you have for merit.

Domenic_S 14y ago

> it's unreasonable to imply that all people in poor socioeconomic circumstances will be able to do the same. Why?

ZachPruckowski 14y ago
Two reasons: First, while it's not entirely a zero-sum game, there's a considerable competitiveness aspect - there aren't enough college slots or scholarships to accommodate everyone getting a good degree from a strong school, and if there were, there wouldn't be enough jobs to hire them into. So at various points, people are going to not make the cut. Do we simply say "well, if you're not in the top X% of the nation you'll have to make do on $10/hour?" Secondly, because we can't simply wave our wands and make everyone 15-30 IQ points smarter. Getting every poor child to be as motivated and intelligent as that anecdote is at least as large a problem as income inequality generally. It's like saying "I've got a cure for cancer, but it requires time travel" - you've just reduced a Very Hard problem to a different Very Hard problem, which is a solid achievement but doesn't actually solve anything. EDIT: And Thirdly, why should the answer be that poor people have to work their asses off to catch up just because they made the wrong choice of parents? It's like a race where some contestants have to carry dumbbells - it's great that they can actually succeed, but it's still miles and miles from fair.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > So at various points, people are going to not make the cut. Do we simply say "well, if you're not in the top X% of the nation you'll have to make do on $10/hour?" False dilemma. The choices are not "either get a good degree from a strong school, or make $10/hour forever". > we can't simply wave our wands and make everyone 15-30 IQ points smarter I'm not sure what your point is here. > why should the answer be that poor people have to work their asses off to catch up just because they made the wrong choice of parents I wasn't arguing that they should, just that they could.
  - ZachPruckowski 14y ago
    >False dilemma. The choices are not "either get a good degree from a strong school, or make $10/hour forever". You're right that it's not yet that stark. Nonetheless, while we need a system which encourages, motivates, and rewards the people who succeed, we also need a system which doesn't abandon the people who don't make the cut. We can't just simply say "well, everyone had a shot" and leave it at that. There are millions of Americans who are working poor, and tens of millions more who are still struggling to get by in the land of plenty. >I'm not sure what your point is here. My point is that just because there are ways out for people who are unusually intelligent and unusually diligent doesn't solve the societal inequity, because not everyone can take advantage of those outs unless they suddenly get a lot smarter en masse. Again, even if we perfect meritocracy and all the incentives, we can't ignore the people who don't have IQs over 115 or whatever[1] [1] - or if IQ is an inadequate measurement, whatever measurement you have for merit.