Hurricane relief

AKA gray asphalt wrote:


"Doof" wrote in message
...


If you think it was merely "luck", then obviously you don't understand it
(success) at all.

Being lucky whilst being stupid will get you into next week or next
month, but not much further.

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

"Doof" wrote:

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?

"Doof" wrote:
So rare that about one third of our present day millionaires
(according to Walter Williams) were born into the bottom half of
economic households.

Yes. Success would be expected of exceptional individuals, wouldn't
you agree?

Not necessarily. Many exceptional people lack even basic success
skills.

Not the kind of exceptional people under discussion. Charles Manson was
an exceptional person in his way, but we're not talking about
psychopaths.

Mr. Williams' statistic supports my point: one has a 100% better
chance of achieving millionaire status if one is born into an
above-median houshold.

You better re-read the article. While it's certainly and advantage,
the benefits come not from transfers of wealth, but from a CULTURAL
perspective.

Nevertheless, the advantage is real, and a person who achieves
millionaire status without it is exceptional. There are kinds of
material advantages other than financial that are transferred from
parents to children.

What portion of the general population is made up of millionaires?
If 1/3 of them come from the low side of the economic bell curve, how
many of that third come from poverty?

Check some of Williams other articles, but about 10% come from
poverty. Now, note, too, that success doesn't necessarilty mean being
a millionaire. One thing, though, that you will find is how many
millionaires are only two generations out of poverty.

That number, I believe you will find, comprises a tiny portion of
the total population.

Yes it is. But the point is that it's not impossible, only difficult.

I never said any different.

However, the major hurdles are almost exclusively between the ears,
not in the wallet.

That is an assertion I would not necessarily argue with, but I do not
know of any hard data that back it up.

I stand by my original point: it requires an exceptional person to
rise out of poverty.

Considering that poverty is FAR MORE a cultural issue, you're right.
It means going against the grain that permeates the area in which you
were born and raised. But again, rising out of poverty to become a
millionaire is not the issue so much as rising out of poverty to
become independent and self-sufficient. Take a good look at the
mindsets that characterize both segments of society and the contrast
is astounding. For one group to understand the others is virtually
impossible, going in either direction.

No doubt.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote:

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?
From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

What proportion would YOU say is volitional?

"Doof" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote:

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?

From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

So your belief is that in the absence of a rare physical impairment, anyone
can just *will* themselves to be smart? So a person with an IQ of 80 (well
within the range designated as "normal") could become a nuclear physicist,
if only she or he chose to work hard enough at it?

I realize it's almost beside the point to ask, but: do you have any evidence
to support such a belief?

--Gary

"Doof" wrote:

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?

From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

What proportion would YOU say is volitional?

I'm sorry; at this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Doof" wrote:

And you don't think smart people are lucky to be smart?

Considering that smart is 99% volitional, no I don't.

Where did you get that number?

From the inverse...that which is physical impairment.

What proportion would YOU say is volitional?

I'm sorry; at this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

How much of "smarts" is volitional and how much is luck?

Okay?