Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Victor Lazlo who wrote (94311)	2/22/2000 2:34:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>precisley the opposite. Your Lewis v. programmer argument implies that it is all genetics and no environment or free will by the individual.<< say what? i said very specifically that genetics were equal. the point is that carl lewis' kid will spend countless hours at the track watching daddy train and run. carl's kid will have access to top flight training methods and diets. there is a high probability carl grooms his kid to be like daddy. carl's kid will hang around athletes and will tend to admire them. he'll admire daddy. carl probably will not expound on the benefits of object oriented programming and big leap forward ado represents vs dao, rdo and odbc. carl probably doesn't know odbc exists. the programmer doesn't spend any time at the track. the "environments" are different. i didn't say i was certain of the outcome. it is all about probabilities of a population and not an isolated instance of one person. you say the chances of the programmer's son being a better sprinter than carl lewis' son is nil. maybe, but the probability greatly favors carl lewis' son. not due to genetics. purely environment. but, alas, you like facts. here are the results of a study... "Nevertheless, Rank did find that children raised in families using public assistance are indeed more likely to use welfare as adults when compared with those growing up in non-welfare households." aha! just as i claimed! the reason... "Interestingly, this connection has little to do with welfare per se," Rank said. "Rather it has to do with poverty. Children from families who have relied on welfare usually come from families with low incomes. If parents have limited finances, their children obviously are going to have less opportunities, less resources. Our analysis shows that this translates into less education, less job skills and therefore, an increased chance of needing welfare assistance as adults. The bottom line is that rather than being a learned lifestyle, welfare dependency is simply a by-product of poverty."<< again, totally supporting my point. record.wustl.edu please feel free to show a link to a study supporting your view. btw, the title of the report is "Survey debunks notion that welfare spurs dependency cycle" so it isn't some left wing diatribe. again... >>Simple correlations suggest a strong negative relationship between maternal welfare receipt and children's outcomes.<< nberws.nber.org