"fetishization of IQ"

When you take the population in aggregate, it is. If you were to randomly pick two American children out of 300 million people, ended up with one who was born wealthy and one who was born poor, and asked me to bet on which one would be wealthy at age 35 I'd pick the one who was born into wealth, every time.

It kind of depends on what you define as "wealthy", and what you define as "born into wealth." Only 5% of individuals in the US earn 100k or more annually, so at least by that definition, "wealth" is a statistical rarity.

Someone who is born into a family with a household income of 75k a year who ends up earning 200k a year at 35 is no great implausibility, statistically speaking. Someone born to parents below the poverty line who ends up with a household income of 75k at age 35 certainly is.

Or whatever the national population of children is.

We're all Africans if you go back far enough.

ChesterW

We're all Africans if you go back far enough.

ChesterW

People comparing smartness is about like zebras comparing the beauty of their stripes. They're all about the same.

ChesterW

that sounds like a lack of life experience.

NT

But what do you mean by "being born into wealth?" "Born wealthy?" Those are abstractions, not real, physical things--we're all born exactly the same, into the air, naked & slimy.

It's also of limited value to say the 5% of Americans who have wealthy parents are more likely to be wealthy themselves. It may well be true, but it says nothing about how the other 95% made their way.

Thank you, that's more clear. And it's no surprise that people with the habits of poverty teach them to their kids.

It is *very* easy to avoid being poor in America. All it takes is a little discipline, a few simple decisions, and sticking to them.

That's one of my sharpest criticisms of the welfare experiment we embarked on some fifty years ago--it has broken up the true safety net--families that care about you--and encouraged the habits that make people poor. It has unquestionably made things worse.

Cheers, James Arthur

I don't entirely agree with that. For me, it's not about what you were born with, it's about whether you're driven to make the most of it.

I admire folk of high capability - whether that capability is derived more from their natural abilities or sheer bloody hard work.

I scorn folk who denigrate and neglect nature's gift to themselves, whether they were born smart or dim.

People who make no effort earn no respect.

Clifford Heath.

Yep. They're more up-to-date and tend to have larger medical staffs.

I preferred the surgeon that performs the operation I needed rather regularly (380 a year). He only did surgery one or two days a week. Figuring that it's at least three hours each (six, in my case), either he has a real assembly line going or he works some really long hours. ;-)

That's just wrong.

Well, people tend to "network", so yes, there is something to hiring someone you already know can do the job.

Huh, I'm only 1/2 EE, but I wrote poetry... love lorn... sickly stuff...

In the ashtray of my mind snuffed dreams smolder, sickening thoughts with their foul stench.

Ughh life was ugly then,

I wrote other things... all young men should write poetry... Don't ya think?

I disagree with your whole statement. I want to know and do and understand, as much as possible. Why not?

To me (a bear of little brain) there seems to be an infinite pool of knowledge, science, stories, people, art...

find what you like, George H.

All white male's in the US are pretty much born into wealth. some more than others, and we can all f' it up.

George H.

I said "most people". Are you claiming that most people DON'T "stick with things they know and with which they have some level of comfort"? That most people are adventurous and eager to take on new experiences beyond their self-imposed limitations?

IME, that hasn't been the case. People want to *do* what they previously did in much the same *way* that they previously did it and with pretty much the same *people* they did it with! They can come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why they "can't" move off that spot... but, when placed in situations where they alone have control over what/where/when, they fall back to the same familiar patterns.

Look *objectively* at your colleagues, neighbors, friends, family, etc. and see how many have deviated appreciably from their "sweet spots". Then, at yourself. If your reply begins with "But..." then you've proved my point.

That doesn't mean people will avail themselves of those opportunities. Nor go out of their way to *create* new ones!

Well, yes. Although I suspect that quite a few of the folks that are the least charitable toward African-Americans believe that the earth is 6000 years old, and that dark skin is the Mark of Cain.

ple/485618/

Some of the problem comes from thinking that "intelligence" is a single thi ng that you can have more or less of. In fact what is measured in intellige nce tests is a collection of skills of various sorts. "Smart" people tend t o have more of most of them - which is why intelligence tests work as well as they do, which isn't all that well.

Some of the skills not measured by intelligence tests at all, like persiste nce and responsibility, have a very strong influence on your chance of comp leting a university course. Of course, if you are clever enough you don't h ave to work very hard or for very long to master a chunk of course work, bu t most of the people who do well enough on examinations to get into univers ities have got a roughly even chance of having enough of the other skills/s trengths to complete the course.

Starting an academic course - for most people - is buying a lottery ticket. The odds are a lot better than in the average lottery, but the payoff is n ot guaranteed.

The "obstacle course" view of university education is that they don't teach anything at all, but merely make life difficult enough for the less able a nd persistent students to push them out, allowing the university to certify the survivors as more able and persistent.

My experience always was that if I tried to apply anything that I'd been ta ught in class, I'd have to go back to the library to find out enough about the subject to know what to do in my particular practical situation, but I' d mostly had to do that to find the answers to the class problems anyway (s o that was what the university had actually taught me - but never tested in any exam).

Income in the USA is remarkably heritable - more so than height. This isn't true in more egalitarian countries (with Scandinavia having the most egali tarian cuountries.

I suspect that you think that you started poor - even though your father wa s a doctor. There is a distinction between poverty and not being wealthy. I f your parents had enough money to feed you well, and to live in a suburb w here the schools were good, you didn't start poor. They might not give you enough money to buy a house when you grow up (which is what wealthy parents do), but they did give you a lot, and a lot more that is given to the kids who grow up in actual poverty.

This often comes down to having gone to the "right" university - as Dan did . I did too, but lit out to England before it could pay off in Australia.

eople/485618/

Brian Josephson got a Nobel prize for inventing the Josephson junction, whi ch is a lot of respect. He's on record as saying that he would have preferr ed to save his name to be attached to an effect that did something, and his subsequent career demonstrates a similar level of judgement.

The respect he has got isn't based on his efforts, which aren't well-direct ed.

Heh, yeah. "My family's joint income was only 58k in 1971, and now I make 200k a year. A true American rags to riches story"