3 ms·

You had me until you said, "Also, they are a great indicator of a potential mate. I pretty much use this as a yardstick while dating these days." Compare to a

You had me until you said, "Also, they are a great indicator of a potential mate. I pretty much use this as a yardstick while dating these days." Compare to a key point in the article: Over the last 40 years, college-educated, rich Americans have clustered together, enjoying all manner of positive network effects much like the ones I just described. Americans without college degrees are living together too, suffering from the same sort of network effects, except in reverse: crime, drug use, low expectations and bad schools. So by rejecting potential mates who are not so lucky as you, and even encouraging others to do the same, you are furthering the clustering of the lucky and the unlucky, furthering the gap in inequality, adding to the tragic Mathew Effect the defines our world.

BrainInAJar 12y ago
> So by rejecting potential mates who are not so lucky as you, and even encouraging others to do the same, you are furthering the clustering of the lucky and the unlucky, furthering the gap in inequality, adding to the tragic Mathew Effect the defines our world. You're proposing we ought to 'take one for the team' and date people who we have nothing in common with and don't necessarily respect (in as much as their life hasn't led them to be as high achieving as them) ?
- eevilspock 12y ago
  No, I'm saying look beyond the "indicators" and "peer groups", and look at the individual person. I personally would have far more respect for someone who bucked the odds and fought for everything she had than for someone who is "high achieving" but got there relatively easily on a path well paved (if not paved with gold). I also find that people who made it through a hard early life tend to be less spoiled and selfish, to be more sympathetic to the plights of others, and to have a greater capacity for love and trust, and to know what's really important in life.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
NTDF9 12y ago
No. I'm open to potential mates who are not so lucky as long as they give me some indication of a successful marriage and will help me in a good upbringing of my offsprings. To put it bluntly, I don't want gold-diggers who value themselves only by their appearance instead of their educational/intellectual/athletic abilities && ability to maintain a stable environment. I don't care if they haven't achieved anything on paper because of lack of resources. But I need strong signals that indicate that they are more than what they look like. A good family background != (a rich family | an unseparated family | a family with resources) A good family background for me == Good morals & curious & interesting personalities & no stupid debt

BrainInAJar 12y ago

> So by rejecting potential mates who are not so lucky as you, and even encouraging others to do the same, you are furthering the clustering of the lucky and the unlucky, furthering the gap in inequality, adding to the tragic Mathew Effect the defines our world. You're proposing we ought to 'take one for the team' and date people who we have nothing in common with and don't necessarily respect (in as much as their life hasn't led them to be as high achieving as them) ?

eevilspock 12y ago
No, I'm saying look beyond the "indicators" and "peer groups", and look at the individual person. I personally would have far more respect for someone who bucked the odds and fought for everything she had than for someone who is "high achieving" but got there relatively easily on a path well paved (if not paved with gold). I also find that people who made it through a hard early life tend to be less spoiled and selfish, to be more sympathetic to the plights of others, and to have a greater capacity for love and trust, and to know what's really important in life.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

NTDF9 12y ago

No. I'm open to potential mates who are not so lucky as long as they give me some indication of a successful marriage and will help me in a good upbringing of my offsprings. To put it bluntly, I don't want gold-diggers who value themselves only by their appearance instead of their educational/intellectual/athletic abilities && ability to maintain a stable environment. I don't care if they haven't achieved anything on paper because of lack of resources. But I need strong signals that indicate that they are more than what they look like. A good family background != (a rich family | an unseparated family | a family with resources) A good family background for me == Good morals & curious & interesting personalities & no stupid debt