6 ms·

The poor tend to be the stupid (plenty of studies to back this up), and hence the poverty. Since they are more stupid, they fall for stupid payday loan schemes,

by thras 17y ago

The poor tend to be the stupid (plenty of studies to back this up), and hence the poverty. Since they are more stupid, they fall for stupid payday loan schemes, credit card idiocy, etc., at rates greater than the rich do. Please do not reply if you read "tend to" as "always." I'm not going to bother responding.

run4yourlives 17y ago
While your comment is a little inflammatory, it's a shame to see it down-modded. That threshold has certainly changed as Hacker News has, and we're losing some good discussion because of it. The thing is, you are in a way correct. Intelligence, ignorance and effort combine into defining a person's success level. We have done a relatively good job at neutralizing all other factors by making them illegal (not that they still don't exist mind you.) Ignorance lessens with experience, as does effort. Intelligence however is the only uncontrollable trait that we still actively discriminate against, and joyfully so. I'm not suggesting this shouldn't be, as I'd hate to imagine that world, but it does mean that a disproportionate amount of the "losers" in life tend to be of below average intelligence.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
huherto 17y ago
But they don't fall for those schemes because they are stupid. They fall because that is the only way they know. Quoting Alan Key."Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." So don't feel that you are way smarter than poor people. We just had a better context to make smarter decisions. Edit: grammar.
njharman 17y ago
yep, so? Your implying stupid people aren't equal, they deserve to be poor? That smart people are superior? Perhaps stupid people should have to stay in special stupid areas, go to separate schools, drink at special stupid people only water fountains. I believe stupid people need more not less of a break, more not less assistance, more not less of everything from society and government precisely cause they are stupid.
- thras 17y ago
  I implied nothing. I said what I said. Your solution, however, leaves much to be desired. Affirmative action for the unintelligent is unlikely to lead to wonderful economic success on any scale.
  - socjus 17y ago
    If your original comment really does imply nothing beyond what it literally said, it is superfluous. All it offers is a correlation - which is insufficient to show whether poverty causes stupidity or the opposite - and a qualitative, unsubstantiated 'explanation' for why stupidity causes poverty and not the other way around.
    - thras 17y ago
      You're right. I didn't say which caused what. I can if you'd like though: Sibling and SES-normed adoption studies tend to show that intelligence is the cause and not the result.
      - davidmathers 17y ago
        I wasn't going to waste my time responding to this, but wikipedia made it easy: The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[8] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[8] One reason why some studies claim that IQ only accounts for a sixth of the variation in income is because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance). A 2002 study[75] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an offspring's inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

by thras 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago

While your comment is a little inflammatory, it's a shame to see it down-modded. That threshold has certainly changed as Hacker News has, and we're losing some good discussion because of it. The thing is, you are in a way correct. Intelligence, ignorance and effort combine into defining a person's success level. We have done a relatively good job at neutralizing all other factors by making them illegal (not that they still don't exist mind you.) Ignorance lessens with experience, as does effort. Intelligence however is the only uncontrollable trait that we still actively discriminate against, and joyfully so. I'm not suggesting this shouldn't be, as I'd hate to imagine that world, but it does mean that a disproportionate amount of the "losers" in life tend to be of below average intelligence.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

huherto 17y ago

But they don't fall for those schemes because they are stupid. They fall because that is the only way they know. Quoting Alan Key."Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." So don't feel that you are way smarter than poor people. We just had a better context to make smarter decisions. Edit: grammar.

njharman 17y ago

yep, so? Your implying stupid people aren't equal, they deserve to be poor? That smart people are superior? Perhaps stupid people should have to stay in special stupid areas, go to separate schools, drink at special stupid people only water fountains. I believe stupid people need more not less of a break, more not less assistance, more not less of everything from society and government precisely cause they are stupid.

thras 17y ago
I implied nothing. I said what I said. Your solution, however, leaves much to be desired. Affirmative action for the unintelligent is unlikely to lead to wonderful economic success on any scale.
- socjus 17y ago
  If your original comment really does imply nothing beyond what it literally said, it is superfluous. All it offers is a correlation - which is insufficient to show whether poverty causes stupidity or the opposite - and a qualitative, unsubstantiated 'explanation' for why stupidity causes poverty and not the other way around.
  - thras 17y ago
    You're right. I didn't say which caused what. I can if you'd like though: Sibling and SES-normed adoption studies tend to show that intelligence is the cause and not the result.
    - davidmathers 17y ago
      I wasn't going to waste my time responding to this, but wikipedia made it easy: The American Psychological Association's report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns[8] states that IQ scores account for about one-fourth of the social status variance and one-sixth of the income variance. Statistical controls for parental SES eliminate about a quarter of this predictive power. Psychometric intelligence appears as only one of a great many factors that influence social outcomes.[8] One reason why some studies claim that IQ only accounts for a sixth of the variation in income is because many studies are based on young adults (many of whom have not yet completed their education). On pg 568 of The g Factor, Arthur Jensen claims that although the correlation between IQ and income averages a moderate 0.4 (one sixth or 16% of the variance), the relationship increases with age, and peaks at middle age when people have reached their maximum career potential. In the book, A Question of Intelligence, Daniel Seligman cites an IQ income correlation of 0.5 (25% of the variance). A 2002 study[75] further examined the impact of non-IQ factors on income and concluded that an offspring's inherited wealth, race, and schooling are more important as factors in determining income than IQ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient