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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (107745)	6/8/2001 6:00:24 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Try explaining this concept to the Democrats in our country.... <g>

To: GraceZ who wrote (107745)	6/9/2001 2:53:38 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

>>fortunate people often confuse skill with good fortune, imho. Just as frequently as unfortunate people confuse success with good fortune.<< so that means we agree that fortunate people often confuse skill with good fortune. that is a start ;-) btw, i agree with your statement. in my mind, the worst poverty is a mental state. >>In fact I would say this is the biggest obstacle people who are born poor have to get over, that somehow the world is rigged so they can't succeed and there doesn't exist a logical set of steps available for them to succeed. It may in fact be stacked against them, but hardship can be a great motivating force.<< grace, every circumstance has some probability distribution of future success. my point is that nobody earns this probability distribution of success b/c nobody chooses what environment to which they were born. it is good fortune. for example, what is the success probability distribution for those children locked in a closet their five years of life? throw in poor and abusive (ok, redundant) parents. what will be the mean income of all the children in this group? now, let's compare that to bill gates' kids? ok, the sample is too small ;-) let's compare the closet success distribution to that of children with loving, caring, nuturing, education focused parents making over $1 million a year running their own business? would you agree the probability of financial success is greatly stacked in the favor of the closet child? no? good thing! the fact is, the millionaire children were fortunate. this is a simple example in a complex world so it isn't meant as a be all, end all. i think the point is obvious. >>Persistence wins out over brains repeatedly and it surely wins out over being simply born to a middle class family.<< is persistence genetic? yes? then one is fortunate to have good genetics. is it learned? yes? then one is fortunate to grow up in an environmnet where persistence was nurtured. "fortunate</>" keeps popping up! ;-) >>When you are talking about Bill Gates type success, you can't remove the idea that luck had an enormous hand, but the guy might be one of the most persistent people on the planet.<< see above. >>Some of the hardest working individuals I know were born wealthy and some of the most successful I know were born poor. Seeing this was a great eye opener for me.<< good fortune can not always be measured in terms of dollars and sense. an environment that develops the foundation of success is critical. i'd submit that children with rich parents locked in a closet for their first 5 years will not earn as much money, on average, as a child growing up in a poor family that nurtures confidence, persistence, hard work, education and a few other virtues, all else being equal. remember, the first child will be 6 years old and have little clue how to talk, let alone function correctly. it is not rational to use a person who "made it" against all odds as proof everyone in the same horrible circumstances can "make it." if one uses an outlier in a normal distribution to prove that the mean could move to that position if "it only wanted to" one would get a LOUD roar of laughter at an actuary convention. >>It was then I realized that there was just as much prejudice against wealthy people in this country as there is against poor people.<< grace, prejudice against rich people doesn't take food off the plate of their children. can i be excused for not prioritizing their "emotional" hurt as highly as i do physical harm? not that it isn't real, but it is down on the list a bit. certain causes tend to yield certain results. many extremely important causes (especially during the critical 0-6 year time frame) nobody has personal control over, eg, picking their parents and their environment and education they receive. it is good fortune.