
It’s better to be born rich than gifted - joeyespo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/
======
dokein
This isn’t going to be popular, but:

Should parents be allowed to try to give their children a boost in life? If
the answer is yes, then it follows that parents with more resources will be
more able to provide that boost.

For me, the line is drawn at “legacy” admissions or jobs, where a clearly
lesser candidate is given the nod over someone who is more qualified. But if
the parent is able to provide e.g. volunteer opportunities or early business
exposure, tutoring, and other extracurriculars, and their child grows as a
result of that, I think that’s actually progressive at a societal level
(spurring more growth at earlier ages).

The problem with summary statistics like in this article is that there’s no
nuance — just a brute “unfair” reflex triggered in the reader.

~~~
Qworg
It is definitely inequitable. However, it is also how humans work - we want to
advantage our inner group over other groups.

This cuts directly to the heart of the meritocracy argument (most strongly in
technology, but it exists everywhere): how can you claim that everyone is
judged by their merits (directly related to how hard they work and how smart
they train themselves to be) when being lucky (in genetics, in birth, in
support and growth, in opportunities) plays such an overwhelming role?

~~~
AndrewKemendo
I had a meeting with a very successful guy who is CIO at a major tech startup
who was looking to acquire our company.

Because we were friends for a while I said something to the effect of "I just
want to make sure this doesn't look like nepotism"

His response was basically, "Who cares? I love Nepotism. that means me and my
friends do better and help each other out."

Kind of shocked me to be honest, but after thinking about it it makes total
sense. Why wouldn't you help your friends? I mean I help my friends all the
time, but there seemed to be an artificial cutoff when it came to hiring and
buying companies or otherwise giving them outward signs of "success."

Not sure I can make a rational case against Nepotism even though it feels
wrong.

~~~
dieterrams
Suppose it is clearly the wrong business choice for your friend's company to
acquire your company.

Suppose a friend promoted you over someone else who was vastly more qualified,
and worked much harder than you for that promotion.

Etc.

Now suppose you're the one getting screwed over instead of the friend
benefiting.

It's not nepotism if friends benefiting is merely a side effect of making the
best business (or whatever) decision. But if that decision process is
subverted in order to benefit friends, negatively impacting other stakeholders
that you have a responsibility to, creating a work environment which is deeply
unfair and unmeritocratic, etc., then that is absolutely a problem. This
should be pretty obvious.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
The problem with that approach though is that it's never clear cut.

Maybe someone is "vastly more qualified" technically but doesn't have any
business sense or some other quality that is unknown to the rest of the group.
There were many times where I thought that the wrong person was promoted or
hired, to find out later that they were actually a good fit. Were they the
PERFECT fit? I don't know, but there is value in having history with someone
to have a higher confidence they will meet the minimum standard.

There's always someone or some group that is "better" for a job or acquisition
or whatever based on some metric.

It's a real problem in my mind for "market information." Generally people go
for a product they know, that can fit the bill, over a product they don't know
that might be better. Same goes for hiring and personnel etc...

~~~
dieterrams
I was merely giving you the clearest possible examples, since you seem to be
confused about what possible harm nepotism could cause.

Sure, in some situations, it may be ambiguous who is actually the better pick.
For argument's sake, let's assume such choices are ALWAYS ambiguous. If you're
consistently picking your friends in those situations, you're nevertheless
creating a perception of nepotism (read unfairness) throughout the rest of the
company, which will minimally be harmful to morale. So yeah, even if you're
not being particularly nepotistic, guarding against the perception of nepotism
is still important.

My bigger concern, however, is that it's very easy for someone to rationalize
nepotism when they're a beneficiary.

I really don't know enough about the specifics of your situation to know if
nepotism is much of a concern, but I definitely don't think your friend's
"nepotism is GREAT" stance is worth taking seriously.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
What is confusing is that I realized there are cases where Nepotism could be
net-comparable or even net-benefit. I had never considered there to be an
ethical upside to nepotism before, only a downside.

So that's why I was shocked.

------
bko
> Contrast that with a finding from the other end of the genetic scoring
> scale: about 27 percent of those who score at the bottom quarter of the
> genetic index, but are born to high-income fathers, graduate from college.

Is this "genetic index" real and scientifically accepted? It sounds vaguely
like eugenics.

> And their work has limitations, in addition to being limited to white people
> for now.

I guess you can use the idea of "genetic scoring" as long as you side step
race, but the idea has a long dark history and strikes me as un-scientific.

~~~
paulpauper
It has nothing to do with eugenics. One can also create a genetic
index/profile for heart disease risk or anything else.

~~~
bko
Pre-disposition to illness is fine. But that's not what the researchers are
talking about when they talk about a superior "genetic score".

------
Rjevski
No-bullshit link: [https://archive.is/Yp12Q](https://archive.is/Yp12Q)

Also, I feel like it's necessary to point out just how scummy this site really
is. They advertise a more expensive, no-tracking subscription, but say "By
subscribing, you agree to the use by us and our third-party partners of
technologies such as cookies to personalize content and perform analytics" on
the subscription page.

------
1999
I think this article sets up the paper against two incorrect worldviews:

1\. America is a genetic meritocracy -- you achievement is based on your
potential. My interpretation of "traditional" American values is more focused
around hard work, toughness, and foresight ... this sort of thing:
[https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm](https://www.trumanlibrary.org/lifetimes/farm.htm)
. I'm pretty sure the idea that your academic performance determines your
place in society _is_ the tradition of _somewhere_ but I don't think it is
America:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination)
.

2\. That going to college is not a direct product of wealth. Spending 4 years
of adulthood doing something other than work could itself be used as a
measurement of wealth. It feels to me like they are comparing two slightly
different measurements of wealth and acting like it is something else.

Almost everyone in the study population would have gone to college before
1990, so their choices aren't based on the current situation, they are based
on the situation 30 years ago as well.

The one thing I am positive about is that is provides evidence that wealth is
actually a positive influence on education ... maybe it will help people who
value education above all support pro-wealth policies like lower tax.

~~~
perfunctory
I never really understood why lower tax is pro-wealth. What does it really
mean? I am not trolling, I am really curious. Let's say I see some opportunity
to grow my wealth, am I going to look at the current tax level and if it's
above certain threshold I am just gonna say screw it, I am not taking it?

~~~
anonymous5133
Yup, exactly which is why the rates for capital gains are reduced. If you make
the capital gains high enough the reward you get for taking the risk won't be
high enough.

I think it has a bigger deterrence effect with non-capital gains income. Once
you start getting in the higher income tax brackets, it isn't really worth it
to put in more hours for additional income when 50% of it is taken in income
tax off the top. That's how I look at it at least.

~~~
perfunctory
I am paying 52% income tax rate in the upper bracket. I doesn't stop me from
trying to increase my income.

Clarification - I am not making any claims as to whether I support this tax
level or not. I am just saying it doesn't discourage me from trying to get
ahead.

~~~
conanbatt
In economic modeling of course it does, and in terms of individual experience,
which can vary from that , Im willing to challenge it as well.

If they told you that if you volunteered for government on saturdays, they
would exempt you from income tax altogether, would you do it?

~~~
TACIXAT
I would, that's a great deal.

~~~
conanbatt
Im pretty sure most people would: its working more time, for paying less
taxes. An intuitive example of how taxation does affect the amount of time
worked, at any income level.

------
MisterOctober
Reminds me of the original "Ocean's 11" \-- after silver-spoon punk Jimmy
Foster [Lawford] is done needling his gangster soon-to-be stepdad Duke Santos
[Romero], Santos launches in to a story about growing up tough in the streets
and how it prepared him to "always fight" [and thereby become wealthy], but at
a cost of years and health.

After a beat, Foster says "Just goes to show : My way's better."

Santos [incredulous] : "What way is that?"

Foster : "Choose rich parents."

Santos : "Ha! You can bet your boots it is."

------
kasperni
Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents who
are university professors, doctors or succesfull entrepreneurs than parents
who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly outnumber the
others.

I don't think it is just the money. You also have someone (your parents) to
mentor you everyday about how to be "succesfull". They probably have a network
you can tap into, someone who knows someone. You wanna start your own
business, great let us call X,Y,Z and set up a holding company. Also here is
some bootstrap cash.

You most likely also live somewhere nice and have resourceful friends growing
up. Hey let us start a business together. You are not going to settle for
working at a supermarket because you would have no chance of keeping of the
standard of living you had growing up. And those friends, they are dining at
the Fat Duck again, while you go to McDonalds.

Almost all of my "succesfull" friends have "succesfull" parents. Even though I
lot more friends with parents who have ordinary jobs.

~~~
asaph
> Just take a look at Wikipedia. There are more people on there with parents
> who are university professors, doctors or succesfull (sic) entrepreneurs
> than parents who are farmers. Even though the amount of farmers vastly
> outnumber the others.

Do you have any data to back this up?

~~~
askafriend
I'm also curious. Strong claims like that require strong evidence.

I'm not just going to take that comment at face value and neither should
anyone else.

------
cortesoft
Depends on how 'better' is defined. It looks like they are defining 'better'
in this study as 'graduating from college'. That seems like an awfully narrow
view of better.

~~~
twblalock
Graduating from college is correlated with better life outcomes in a lot of
areas, including income, health[1], and life expectancy[2][3].

The causal effect of college graduation on those aspects of life varies, but
the correlation is so strong that it makes sense to use it as a proxy for
"better".

[1]: [https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-
jus...](https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-
money.pdf) [2]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/)
[3]: [https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-
education](https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education)

~~~
tomp
Just if wealth is correlated with graduation, and graduation is correlated
with success, doesn't mean that wealth is correlated with success.

If anything, the article could be interpreted to apply the opposite - those
skilled poor people that _do_ graduate have climbed so high so fast compared
to unskilled rich graduates that they're very likely to climb _even farther_
further in life.

------
sonabinu
Rich always have the advantage of better nutrition, information and resources
(if parents don't have time, they hire tutors). Is it truly a genetic
advantage or a socio-economic advantage? Is there a good way to hold all other
variables as a constant in this study?

~~~
skookumchuck
Rich parents also are more likely to show their kids how to handle money and
get rich. See the book "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kiyosaki.

Edit: Teaching kids how to manage money, the time value of money, the basics
of running a business, how markets work, etc., is painfully neglected by the
schools. Young adults often have little knowledge of this, and it definitely
puts them at a serious disadvantage.

~~~
mercer
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiyosaki#Criticism_and_controversy)

~~~
skookumchuck
Thanks for the info, I didn't know that about him.

I've read his book, and the fundamental idea of looking at money differently
is sound. I know I look at money very differently now than I did when I was
young. I.e. I view it now as a tool rather than a scorecard.

~~~
mercer
Yeah, I can see that.

I rather believe in the "God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick"
principle, so it's quite possible his advice is good, or at least part of it.
Just figured it'd be good to know this about him.

------
DoreenMichele
Completing college and getting a well paid job is not the absolute measure of
a person, nor the highest attainment of success.

Ghandi.

Joan of Arc.

Jesus of Nazareth.

Dr. Martin Luther King.

William Wallace.

Einstein.

Etc.

Freedom, human dignity, compassion, knowing how to live right. These all tend
to fall outside the scope of corporate aspiration.

The article is talking about "success" by essentially a single metric.
Humankind does not live by bread alone.

~~~
curuinor
born rich (his dad was a provincial minister)

poor

poor (middle-class, if you think a carpenter is that way, maybe)

middle-class

rich (born a landed knight)

rich (although his father's engineering firm went bust but restarted and did
well in the second time and they had money worries at times)

about 0.5-5% of people are rich by most definitions

humankind does not live by bread alone, but put a human in a box and don't
feed them and see what happens

~~~
DoreenMichele
Put all humans in a mental box that suggests that how much money they make and
how much profit they turn are all that matter and see what happens. That isn't
pretty either. We are seeing some of the gruesome outcomes of that currently,
for example:

[https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-
dfe9d23207...](https://medium.com/@joycebowen/murder-by-medicine-dfe9d2320726)

------
BurningFrog
I just skimmed the article, but one huge problem:

Intelligence is known to be largely genetic, _but_ we have almost _no idea_
what genes, or combination of genes are responsible. So whatever genetic
correlation this is based on is bound to be nearly meaningless.

~~~
why_only_15
It literally specifies all these things in the article. There are thousands of
genes that are all in part responsible and the study was initially performed
across 20,000 people and then was replicated in independent studies.

~~~
BurningFrog
I'm sure they used all available knowledge.

My point is that right now we know very little.

------
jstewartmobile
For every silver spoon who flies through higher-ed to the gilded cage at the
end of the rainbow, there are several more left back home--still living under
daddy's shadow--duking it out with the others for a bigger share of the
corpse.

Sometimes, we need adversity. Not so much for our bank accounts as for our
souls.

------
badrabbit
You know what's better than both? Perseverance. Learned or by birth,those who
can persevere succeed. The world is full of gifted losers. Even those born
rich might not amount to more than what they were born with.

If a child grows up to be a decent human being,a functional member of society
,a responsible spouse,parent,child and can hold down a decent job is that
person not doing better than a rich and gifted person that can't function well
in society and does not treat others well?

All I'm saying is 'better' should mean across the board better. Not _just_
financially , career wise or contributions to society.

------
lazyjones
So we measure „better“ in life using academic success now? Is academic success
the ultimate goal in life, the key to happiness? Or is the WP just pushing
typical political propaganda using fake science these days?

~~~
geocar
"Academic success" as a useful proxy because of how it predicts income,
health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3].

I'm not sure whether "fake science" in the absence of obvious, easy-to-google
evidence is mere intellectual laziness, or if you actually believe that
because _some_ people are successful (by many reasonable measures) without an
education that this somehow means that _education itself_ is not valuable. In
either case, here you go.

[1]: [https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-
jus...](https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-
money.pdf)

[2]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4435622/)

[3]: [https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-
education](https://www.mpg.de/10795685/longevity-education)

~~~
lazyjones
> _it predicts income, health, longevity, and so on [1], [2], [3]._

We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using
"academic success" as an intermediate predictor?

> _if you actually believe that because some people are successful (by many
> reasonable measures) without an education that this somehow means that
> education itself is not valuable._

Straw man.

It's not a valid (scientific) conclusion to apply the result of correlation
studies on a large mixed group to selected subgroups and assume it will apply
equally. IOW, rich people with college degree might not live longer than those
without just because the general population does.

But my point was something else: a better life is neither measured by wealth
nor academic success or life expectancy at 25. It's entirely subjective and
such click-baity titles are misleading. It should read "it's better _for
academic success_ to be born rich than gifted", but then it would't be
sensationalist enough.

~~~
geocar
> We already knew that rich people live longer, so what's the point in using
> "academic success" as an intermediate predictor?

That’s because we can then explore if it’s causal or not. Current best
research suggests it is, at least in the USA[1]

[1]: Lleras-Muney Adriana. The Relationship Between Education and Adult
Mortality in the United States. Review of Economic Studies.
2005;72(1):189–221.Kawachi Ichiro, et al. Money, Schooling, and Health:
Mechanisms and Causal Evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
2010;(1186):56–68

> Straw man.

Sorry: how exactly have I misstated your point?

You’ve got a controversial opinion, and an aggressive way of presenting it
(fake news). You’re giving it even though it’s not the mainstream opinion, and
you’re doing it without reference or attribution. If you actually think I’m
not giving you a fair shot, please explain.

My understanding is: You think that since money and lifespan are related, and
education and money are related, that IFF lifespan and education are linked it
must be through money?

If you've actually got a different point, then you haven’t yet made it clear
to me. If you can manage that, I’ll try to address it, but this one has been
addressed.

------
starchild_3001
Lot's of nonsense here.

Rich vs gifted? Yeah, right, as if you can control for all the other factors
and compare the two.

Rich correlates with so many other things (genetics, support network, exposure
to the right kind of things).

Gifted is also impossible to ascertain (e.g. exam scores aren't a perfect
indicator of gifteness as ability, perseverance, hard working ethic etc all
drive success in life).

What's discussed here cannot be science. Take it for what it is.

------
WhitneyLand
The article fails to adequately emphasize a huge point.

Even if wealth gives better odds, it’s not like it’s 10:1. Being gifted,
educated, and having a modest but healthy environment are massive advantages.

It would be difficult to calculate the fundamental contributions to society of
people in the latter category.

------
richard___
How the hell is this study seen in a negative light? Genes, how fast your
brain processes information, CANNOT be changed. That's just biology. Money,
education, knowledge - these CAN be changed.

------
sdinsn
It's better to be born rich than gifted, if you think that college graduation
rates are the number one most important thing in the world.

------
jimnotgym
This should be the tag line for politicians in the UK!

------
ccnafr
The understatement of the century

------
sunstone
It's much more likely for a gifted person to become rich than it is for a rich
person to become gifted.

------
paulpauper
Jordan Peterson says it's the opposite. I guess it also depends on how one
defines 'rich'. If you're the only child of a multi-millionaire family, then
you're in a much better financial position than being one of 3-5 children of a
family that is only upper-middle class. But one cannot underestimate the power
of having a high IQ though in terms of making wealth. You look at at all these
successful people in STEM and start-ups, many from middle-class families and
2nd gen. immigrant families, and they tend to all have high IQs. Just a few
days ago someone solved the 310 bitcoin challenge and made a cool $2 million.
The person who solved it probably has a high IQ. Same for ppl who invested in
bitcoin early. Again and again, with the possible exception of some actor and
athletes, you find that with wealth, a high IQ is not far behind.

~~~
Hydraulix989
If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth.

Having a high IQ still requires you to rely on luck by rolling the dice at
investing (knowing to buy bitcoin is more gambling than intelligence),
squeaking past super selective all-or-nothing societal gateways like Ivy
League admissions, FAANG interviews, YCombinator, etc. against very stacked
odds, tenacity whenever life randomly and inevitably decides to punch you in
the gut, and tremendous sacrifices in terms of hard work, time, MORALITY
(screwing people over and fighting hard to prevent others who are actively
working against you from doing the same to you), and personal health.

I think the fact that you can solve puzzles really well on a test doesn't
really lend itself well to money making at all. There's FAR too much of a
chance/luck component to making money to attribute it to IQ alone. Any time
I've ever made money, I came back thinking wow, I was very lucky -- even
though everyone is still biased towards themselves in terms of their own
personal attributes or qualities (intelligence, hard work, savviness,
hustling, etc.) when they make money, I can still recognize that yes, buying
and selling crypto at the right time was almost entirely luck -- so was
teaching myself how to code when I was 8 years old growing up in a rural area
where everyone else thought it was a waste of time. Hard work is a necessary
but not sufficient condition to make money -- same applies to IQ. Often you'll
find people who had the exact same amount of "talent" or worked just as hard
doing exactly the same things as someone who has a lot of money but don't have
anything to show for it. Right place, right time.

Meanwhile, having money handed to you on a silver plate by virtue of your
birth family means being able to accomplish all of the above without doing or
sacrificing anything at all, and you even still have a free pass from society
to still have an ego about it. Even worse, many people somehow see having
money as a moral characteristic while selectively ignoring the very often
immoral cost of acquisition.

~~~
paulpauper
>If I had to pick between IQ and pre-existing wealth, I would choose wealth.

It depends how one defines wealth. If the choice is framed as choosing between
$10 million lump sum with no taxes or any conditions vs. an IQ of 130, then
maybe the $10 million and an IQ of 100 is the better bet. However, these
studies define 'wealthy' (assuming they even quantify it at all) to be merely
upper-middle class, which is much less, and this this wealth is further
diluted by number of siblings and other factors.

>. Hard work is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make money -- same
applies to IQ.

That's my point and I agree. But many of these articles downplay or ignore the
role of IQ. IQ is still necessary but it may not be sufficient.

~~~
Hydraulix989
You need an IQ of at least 140 probably even 150 to make $10 million (4+
stddev). You see people on the street every day with a 130 IQ, that's your
average software engineer right there.

~~~
Kaveren
No you don't, where is this supposed to come from? 130 IQ on 15 SD is probably
significantly too high as well to be the mean average.

~~~
obscurantist
I've lived in the Bay Area since before starting kindergarten. No way the
average IQ of software engineers here, or anywhere, is close to 130. Software
engineering might be one of the only STEM disciplines that gives credibility
to the Ortega hypothesis.

~~~
Hydraulix989
How so? I don't see how the average software engineer IQ being 100 vs 130
affects the (rather questionable) proposition that the large mass of
average/mediocre software engineers MIGHT outperform the handful of Jeff
Dean's (the claim made by the Ortega Hypothesis). Just based on the IQ
population distribution alone, it's not unreasonable to think that Jeff Dean
has a 160-170+ IQ.

It is still a questionable proposition -- "10x engineers" are a thing, and
brilliant singular insights that unlock billions of dollars in productivity
like the concepts of convolutional neural networks and MapReduce are the
brainchild of rare chart-defying individuals, rather than a product of the
masses working in tandem. The Pareto Principle still seems to hold, even for
software engineering (just ask any Bay Area software company's HR department).

Regardless, as an appeal to intuition, there is some sort of minimum bar
(software engineers are still a VERY scarce commodity, as evidenced by market
dynamics), suggesting that the average individual (100 IQ) is ill-equipped to
take on the sort of abstract reasoning and novel thought processes so readily
discarded by billions of years of prior evolution (indeed, knowing C++ would
not have helped you as a primordial human fighting off that hungry sabertooth
tiger) needed to comprehend and write robust code wading through some of the
most complex systems (the Linux kernel is millions of lines of code) ever
fathomed by humankind. This is the whole premise behind IQ theory, which
really just boils down to a simple statistical argument.

