[thelettere]

The idea that only the rich are able to take risks - or even think about it - is a bias, and an ugly one at that.

It doesn't match history - the only reason we have many good things is because poor people took major risks - and it's part of the tyranny of low expectations that is seeping deeper every day into the fabric of our culture.

It's a remarkably effective way of keeping the pours in their place in the name of "empathy" and "awareness". It's akin to a humblebrag where that the rich can talk bad about themselves while shoring up their position.

And it's a kind of talk that I as one of those pours have zero patience with.

[sangnoir]

> It doesn't match history - the only reason we have many good things is because poor people took major risks

Check your history again - most of the people who made scientific discoveries or breakthroughs were people of means, or otherwise didn't have to do "real" (paying) work[1] and could afford to dick-around with experiments all day long for months on end and not starve.

1. In history - i.e. from dawn of time to about 1950-ish, when research universities and corporate/government R&D matured.

[thelettere]

Where did I say science? Many modern scientific disciplines are by their nature exclusionary because they require access to specialized equipment and space, so of course that's somewhat of an exception to my generality.

And I say somewhat because historically a surprising number of breakthroughs did not happen in a lab, nor were discovered by professional scientists. I took a course in the history of science and tech and the primary lesson pounded into us was how often breakthroughs were accidents made by amateurs.

And among the names of poor scientists are folks like Tesla and the early Einstein I mentioned earlier. So my point stands, even extending a little bit at least here.

[sangnoir]

You didn't - I said science since it's a specific subset of "many good things" in history that has a clear written record I'm familiar with. Do you think science should be excluded? If so, which fields did you have in mind? Philosophy? Political theory? Economics?

[thelettere]

I would hope it is obvious I am not talking about the period prior to the modern age in which the only people who could read were rich.

Because that says nothing about mindset, which is the claim I was replying to.

To test his mindset theory, we have to go to a period in which raw non-monetary resources - the most basic of which is the ability to read - is distributed among both rich and poor. And then you see - do the pours do anything?

And they do, across the vast majority of fields - including even science, which I edited my reply above to include. I'm shocked indeed that this is even being questioned. I'm coming from a humanities and social science background and so that's my primary frame of reference, but my understanding is that while it is not the rule of course they are widely a not insignificant minority among those who have made significant contributions. And obviously an even larger group if we include not only the poor but also the "non-privileged" which is who the OP to this particular thread was throwing into relief.

[sangnoir]

It's polite to mark any substantive edits you make after posting. When I replied - your entire comment was just "Where did I say science?".

[thelettere]

Apologies - I edited it apparently just before you replied, and I wasn't familiar with how to mark edits.

[usrbinbash]

Of course everyone can take risks, but the consequences of these risks backfiring, are vastly different based on available monetary resources.

A wealthy person may well sink years and piles of money into a dream. If it doesn't work out, meh, that's life. Back to some well paid job and preparing the next try.

Person in strained financial position doing the same and it backfires: May well take years to get back on ones feet, and may even end up in a homeless shelter.

[thelettere]

The person who I responded to said "the mindset that lets you do this is a mindset that comes from a background of abundance" - implying that pours have a mindset which doesn't "let them" take risks.

And it goes without saying that the rich have it easier. That doesn't make it their exclusive province, nor indeed should it. It's not exactly as if the risk-free pour life is exactly paradise anyways. When I fell from working class to vagabond in fact it was a significant step up.

[chousuke]

It's not that the ability to take risks is fundamentally different, it's just that if you're rich, the consequences of failure will be easier to deal with, allowing more risk-taking and thus more chances at success.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

> the tyranny of low expectations that is seeping deeper every day

Thank you. I agree and in fact I didn't post my initial response because it was too snarky. HN seems to have this idea that people will only take risks if the downside is minimal or a minor career setback. It completely ignores an entire class of people "who have so little that they have nothing to lose."

[mlatu]

i agree, though it's not just a bias. it's a lie, meant to keep those who don't have the capital to sit the fuck down and work for their employers like the rest of them.

especcially since time and time again those poor people who do contribute major inventions, without having much capital, have been, one could say, robbed of their invention by people who do have lots of capital. yeah of course money was exchanged, but not in relation. yeah of course nobody can say how well an invention will lift of, but should be considered in the exchange of goods. that makes it to expensive for the buyer as they cant be sure the risk is worth it when really considering it? then you are an non-Lisper: you know the cost of everything, but the actual value of anything? nah....

money has to go. there is no other way. we need to stop valuating things with money. or rather: at all. Value is a synthetic property, imagined by have's to keep stuff away from have-not's, enforced by the state, who has a lot but is really nobody, since we made it so easy to distribute blame across periods of governance. (not saying we should embrace a kazakh model, just we should be all equal workers)

now, commence the downvoting.

[melenaboija]

I think it is hard to quantify the risk and what loosing *almost everything* means for each situation.

[vmception]

What part of history are you referring to?

What kind of examples are really coming to your mind here?