[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.