3 ms·
> A kid's upbringing and environment at home also play very large factors. I think you vastly overestimate the importance of those things. Decades of twin stud
by clarkm 13y ago
> A kid's upbringing and environment at home also play very large factors.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of those things. Decades of twin studies show the impact of shared environment on life outcome to be pretty small. See Judith Rich Harris' work for more info.
- GVIrish 13y agoI'd have to view that with a large grain of salt. I'm sure there are a lot of innate components of personality that are genetic. And those components of personality do make a big difference in life outcomes. But at the same time there are a lot of home enviromental factors that I've seen make a big difference in children's lives. For one, if you have parents who got you started reading and doing math early, you're going to have an advantage going into school. If you get school and are ahead of your peers, you're more likely to get extra attention or to be put into gifted and talented programs, which will in turn, reinforce that advantage. Kids who come from disrupted or abusive households are going to be at an undeniable disadvantage. Kids from families that don't teach them the value of education are more likely not to value education. Kids from families with poor work habits are more likely to have poor work habits. Again, it doesn't mean that 100% of kids who don't learn to read by 2 and have 2 perfect parents are going to fail, it just means it is harder for those kids to succeed. If that wasn't the case, parents shouldn't bother putting much effort into parenting at all. "Welp son, I hope the genes I gave ya will do ya some good, you're on your own. I'm sure you'll figure out how to feed and clothe yourself..."
- anovikov 13y agoValue of education depends a great lot on other aspects of personality and circumstances and at least to me, is not undeniable (while for most people, it has some value). Education gets you some extra miles in the low-middle class range, like, you are more likely to get to mid-middle class if you were low-middle without it. It won't save you from poverty, and it won't make you rich. None of the moderately rich/high middle class people i know are well-educated. If they have anything in common then it's that they are smart and sociopathic. Education itself even doesn't much improve chances to get a good career as an employee, most Ph.D. and MBAs i know are wasting their time doing mundane pseudo-intellectual work for meager pay. While i know senior and top management in large and powerful corporations, earning ca. million a year, without any business or economic degrees (one of them has a programmer diploma by the way). Just people who have a habit of getting work done, reliable and proactive. Be like that and nobody will ask you which school have you finished. Proof: median income of a Ph.D. is not even 2x the median income of an American in general. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm And Ph.D. are a high elite when an education attainment in concerned, under 50,000 are graduated each year, compared to 4.1 million Americans reaching age of 25 each year. So Ph.D.s are top 1.2% and getting under 2x as much as median. Top 1% population gets 1.6 million a year on average compared to under 50k median - a difference of about 30x. Even if you compare thresholds it is over 10x. So an highly elite education does not get you into a highly elite social class, or does not get you even a marginally comfortable life. It definitely gets you SOMEWHERE, but probably to a very, very low degree (difference is not even 2x if you remember that an average guy is mentally incapable of becoming a Ph.D. - he is just plain too dumb. so if someone capable of making it did something else instead he will anyways earn somewhat more than median guy will, it is impossible to tell how much more, but somewhat more for sure). In my opinion it is 1.5x difference max.