to wuf: faultlines and the rich, obama's failings

[Lukie]

I believe these assumptions to be highly fallacious.

If I were from poorer origins, I would tend to find myself worse off. If I were from wealthier origins, I would tend to find myself much better off. If I happened to contract an expensive illness without insurance, I would very likely find myself perpetually broke. If I were to inherit a large sum of money tomorrow, I would very likely manage to maintain and enhance that wealth.

The difference between rich people and poor people is in bank account alone, not something innate in the process of the people.

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

I tried to address this a bit. But instead, I'll ask this: what is an innate difference between the rich and the poor?

That there seems to be one evidenced in lotto winners and rich athletes does not mean there necessarily is one, just that there seems to be one.

[Lukie]

I tried to address this a bit. But instead, I'll ask this: what is an innate difference between the rich and the poor?

That there seems to be one evidenced in lotto winners and rich athletes does not mean there necessarily is one, just that there seems to be one.

I think your points earlier about some in other countries really not having a realistic chance of becoming rich are pretty spot on. e.g. one couldn't convince me that a starving kid in Africa has much of a chance

As it relates to those who have access to a computer, the internet, enough time to surf FTR, and literary ability to read this message there isn't a comparable excuse.

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

[CoccoBill]

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

Out of curiosity, how many poor people do you know closely?

[a500lbgorilla]

I think your points earlier about some in other countries really not having a realistic chance of becoming rich are pretty spot on. e.g. one couldn't convince me that a starving kid in Africa has much of a chance

As it relates to those who have access to a computer, the internet, enough time to surf FTR, and literary ability to read this message there isn't a comparable excuse.

Among the rich that I know (friends and acquintances) there is a certain amount of drive, responsibility, and refusal to fail in all of them that I would not expect to see among the typical poor person.

This all sounds spot on. I guess I just see drive and responsibility as attributes of circumstance and not innate. I believe that you could take the same person and have him put up in two different environments and see him turn out to be two different people: one driven, hungry, with an intuition that is honed to the problems at hand, and one that turns out more or less worthless by comparison. But both are still innately the same person.

That is to say that your life could have developed in such a way that you would possess an entirely different skill set than you do today but still be entirely the same person. In a sense, in a parallel universe there may exist a fat, nerd Lukie who is entirely driven to develop the mathematical understanding of a world of entirely imperfect shapes and patterns which arise from simple and regular events on a tiny scale but fails because of legal intervention into his life's pursuits. And there could exist another Lukie still, essentially the same, who slipped into a bit of a meth habit.

This all builds upon a central belief of mine: that we're all 100 fold more similar than we are different. There don't exist supermen - just normal men who seemingly manage to accomplish things on a super scale.

So the rich don't strike me as special, though every bit of their life story could show how they had a deep desire and ability which lead to accumulated wealth, nothing that went into building them was destined for greatness. Just as the poor don't strike me as worthless, though every bit of their life story could show how little they endeavored to succeed and how often they seemingly chose to fail.

[wufwugy]

I don't agree. Good examples: look into the rates of bankruptcy and/or brokeness among lottery winners and former (ahem, and current) professional athletes. It is staggering.

That doesn't actually tell us anything because it doesn't isolate much. Besides, it's an effect that should be predicted if rilla's assertion was right because it would demonstrate a lot of rich people not being rich based in merit. And what about all those hard workers who are financially astute, yet not rich

The best idea we have about the difference between rich and poor is circumstance. This is why we see structural problems of things like blacks on average being substantially poorer than white people. Is Bill Gates a harder worker and smarter than many millions of his peers? No. Was he one of the only people on the planet who had personal access to a computer at the time based on circumstance, then with a little bit of innate human creativity and work, he sparked a wildfire? Yes

[Lukie]

That doesn't actually tell us anything because it doesn't isolate much. Besides, it's an effect that should be predicted if rilla's assertion was right because it would demonstrate a lot of rich people not being rich based in merit. And what about all those hard workers who are financially astute, yet not rich

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right

The best idea we have about the difference between rich and poor is circumstance. This is why we see structural problems of things like blacks on average being substantially poorer than white people. Is Bill Gates a harder worker and smarter than many millions of his peers? No. Was he one of the only people on the planet who had personal access to a computer at the time based on circumstance, then with a little bit of innate human creativity and work, he sparked a wildfire? Yes

Yet another thing I talked about in another thread about how not everything is black and white and there are varying shades of gray. You seem to think that circumstance is the most important thing; I realize it's a factor just less so than you do. Such is life.

[wufwugy]

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right


Yet another thing I talked about in another thread about how not everything is black and white and there are varying shades of gray. You seem to think that circumstance is the most important thing; I realize it's a factor just less so than you do. Such is life.

You are right that I think circumstance is the most important thing. It's what I see in any area whenever I look. One example is evolution being almost entirely about environment. Biologically, nothing about who we are wasn't borne of circumstance. It's a difficult thing to reconcile with other things like ego, though, because even things that seem non-circumstantial still are. Like one person being smarter or more driven is still best explained by that person's circumstances. The way I look at it is that when you're living your own life, you have to treat things as if they're not circumstantial and there is no determinism, but when developing macro models for things like society, you have to account for circumstantial selection, so to speak

[Lukie]

You are right that I think circumstance is the most important thing. It's what I see in any area whenever I look. One example is evolution being almost entirely about environment. Biologically, nothing about who we are wasn't borne of circumstance. It's a difficult thing to reconcile with other things like ego, though, because even things that seem non-circumstantial still are. Like one person being smarter or more driven is still best explained by that person's circumstances. The way I look at it is that when you're living your own life, you have to treat things as if they're not circumstantial and there is no determinism, but when developing macro models for things like society, you have to account for circumstantial selection, so to speak

I can't really disagree with this but it's really on a fundamentally different discussion on a different level. Especially the bolded. I don't believe it is society's or government's job to correct for one person being more intelligent and driven than another.

[a500lbgorilla]

I proposed that in a direct response to rilla's quote that the only difference between rich and the poor is in the bank account. Which, actually, in a roundabout way with a strict definition might actually be right