[david927]

This is the type of statistic that embarrasses statistics. How many of those rated "highly intelligent" (I would be fascinated on how they measured that!) were in an elevated economic group and so now we're reduced to tautology.

Lottery winners have had no experience in managing wealth, often have had years and decades of being impoverished and wishing for products like jewelry that was always out of reach, and then they get inundated with money. They found that who marshmallow experiment was literally kids who have their needs met aren't rushing to consume what's in front of them and that patience pays off.

You're not making any argument here other than when you're born wealthy you're more likely to be wealthy, and that we know.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm genuinely curious what point you are getting at. It seems like you are agreeing with the parent post.

>How many of those rated "highly intelligent" (I would be fascinated on how they measured that!) were in an elevated economic group and so now we're reduced to tautology

>They found that who marshmallow experiment was literally kids who have their needs met aren't rushing to consume what's in front of them and that patience pays off.

Yes, this is what they are saying. There are traits that rich people have that seriously help them maintain and acquire wealth.

[david927]

> There are traits that rich people have that seriously help them maintain and acquire wealth.

I'm saying the only traits that rich people have "that seriously help them maintain and acquire wealth" is that they almost exclusively tend to be born to rich people. That's it. That's the trait.

[ericd]

You don't have to be rich to have your needs met as a child such that you don't need to gobble up marshmallows as soon as you see them, unless you mean rich in the sense that the vast majority of the people in the US are rich compared to the global average. US middle class would be just fine in that regard.

[s1artibartfast]

That would be an interesting test to do internationally.

[s1artibartfast]

So are you saying that has nothing to do with their upbringing? If someone were born to Rich parents, but adopted by poor parents they would still have those same traits? Seems like there's a lot more to it than what womb you came out of.

I agree genetics could play a small role, but I think developmental environment is a much larger part of the picture

[david927]

How did you get that I'm arguing nature over nurture here?

I'm literally saying the opposite. Rich people nurture and help their children with connections, etc.

[s1artibartfast]

I think your use of birth is the hangup. It's not who you're born to, it's how you're raised

>I'm saying the only traits that rich people have "that seriously help them maintain and acquire wealth" is that they almost exclusively tend to be born to rich people. That's it. That's the trait.

This is saying that self control and delayed gratification isn't a trait. It's saying that financial literacy isn't a trait.

At best it's a gross oversimplification that ignores the fact that a huge number of poor people have acquired these traits

[david927]

I'm completely agreeing with you. I've argued this in the worst possible way because everyone is assuming I'm saying the opposite. I'm not saying the seed is different, I'm saying those seeds have more fertile ground.

And I didn't mean "genetic trait" but rather "behavioral trait." Of course it's available to everyone just more likely to be found where it's been nurtured. There are dandelions growing in the cracks of a sidewalk; it's possible, just harder.

I think another aspect that a lot of discussions miss is a feeling of hope. Rich kids tend to have hope. Very poor kids can feel stuck and hopeless. When you have a child who, at a young age (think five or six, even) doesn't feel hope for their future, they don't try as hard and they're more likely to give up sooner.