Nature vs Nurture: Born to Succeed

[calamity]

Some want to say it's genetics. Others insist it's environment. Either way, one thing seems self-evident. We are either born to succeed or enter the world staring at likely failure.

Few would argue against the notion that being born into a stable environment yields better results than starting out in chaos. But, there is also a flipside. Few would argue that a person with exceptional intelligence cannot crawl out of chaos. And, someone with severe mental challenges is unlikely to do well regardless of the stability of his/her environment.

Everything hinges on the circumstance of our birth. Everything.

Thoughts?

 

[brothern]

Few would argue that a person with exceptional intelligence cannot crawl out of chaos.

There are individuals on my India team that are far more hard-working and intelligent than I am. But, I seriously doubt that any of them will be able to "succeed" in life as I have done already. Which I put "scare quotes" because I don't mean in terms of the depth of their character, or their family or relationships. What I mean by "succeed" is looking at the types of the characteristics and benefits that are granted to the 'wealthy,' i.e.,

• I'll earn far more money than they ever will. My salary is mid six figure, while theirs is less than $10k
• I've been able to afford many more experiences and luxuries. Such as, being able to travel around Europe, Australia, South America, Asia, etc. Or having a large house.
• I'll probably live longer than they will - concerning the environment (lack of pollution) and health infrastructure I have vs. they grew up with

Etc.

 

[reflechissez]

Too simplistic.

 

[Felis Leo]

Some want to say it's genetics. Others insist it's environment. Either way, one thing seems self-evident. We are either born to succeed or enter the world staring at likely failure.

Few would argue against the notion that being born into a stable environment yields better results than starting out in chaos. But, there is also a flipside. Few would argue that a person with exceptional intelligence cannot crawl out of chaos. And, someone with severe mental challenges is unlikely to do well regardless of the stability of his/her environment.

Everything hinges on the circumstance of our birth. Everything.

Thoughts?

That people of extraordinary innate talent or intelligence manage to succeed even when the deck is stacked against them is hardly remarkable. Because that is what remarkable people do: Succeed under any circumstance. My question is how do we make it so that average people who may have not been born to stable families or with a silver spoon in their mouth succeed and are able to enjoy a good life without hobbling or hindering others?

 

[calamity]

That people of extraordinary innate talent or intelligence manage to succeed even when the deck is stacked against them is hardly remarkable. Because that is what remarkable people do: Succeed under any circumstance. My question is how do we make it so that average people who may have not been born to stable families or with a silver spoon in their mouth succeed and are able to enjoy a good life without hobbling or hindering others?

Free education and birth control has done wonders with lifting people out of poverty all around the globe. I'd suggest we look closely at those results and try to find similar means of assistance without enabling sloth. It's a delicate balance.

 

[NWRatCon]

That people of extraordinary innate talent or intelligence manage to succeed even when the deck is stacked against them is hardly remarkable. Because that is what remarkable people do: Succeed under any circumstance. My question is how do we make it so that average people who may have not been born to stable families or with a silver spoon in their mouth succeed and are able to enjoy a good life without hobbling or hindering others?

Therein lies a danger too often overlooked. Those born of privilege, even modest privilege, look at those who succeed who were born in lesser circumstances and say, "see, it is possible!" What they ignore is that the odds are stacked decidedly against them, and they are mentally equating a miniscule exception to a broad rule for a class. The successes are, indeed, the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think of the immense talent it took for Barack Obama to succeed and the complete lack of ability Eric Trump possesses and say, "what's wrong with this picture"?

 

[calamity]

Therein lies a danger too often overlooked. Those born of privilege, even modest privilege, look at those who succeed who were born in lesser circumstances and say, "see, it is possible!" What they ignore is that the odds are stacked decidedly against them, and they are mentally equating a miniscule exception to a broad rule for a class. The successes are, indeed, the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think of the immense talent it took for Barack Obama to succeed and the complete lack of ability Eric Trump possesses and say, "what's wrong with this picture"?

Along those lines, I am reminded of the ease with which most of us slid right into a decent middle class income and lifestyle. Meanwhile, like you said, those who do manage to succeed from situations far less privileged usually must be "superstars."

Our system is set up such that average effort from those born into solidly middle class families leads to a middle class outcome. One of those kids has to really screw up to fall below that line. OTOH, those born into poverty and despair better be good at throwing a ball or writing songs because the odds of them landing a gig as office manager in a fortune 500 company are slim to none.

One exception is earning a STEM degree. If the kid has the smarts to earn an engineering degree or excels in physics, chemistry or a medical profession, the door to the middle class opens, even if they have horrible roots beneath them.

 

[Bullseye]

Free education and birth control has done wonders with lifting people out of poverty all around the globe. I'd suggest we look closely at those results and try to find similar means of assistance without enabling sloth. It's a delicate balance.

Actually, capitalism did most that. People working for themselves work harder.

 

[calamity]

Actually, capitalism did most that. People working for themselves work harder.

Without education and/or birth control, they never get that far.

 

[Bullseye]

Without education and/or birth control, they never get that far.

A classic LW trope.

 

[phoenix2020]

Early education and nutrition (ages 2-8) make an enormous difference. We would see far more equitable outcomes if there were parity of each during these years. More specifically I would like to see more investment in mandatory pre-school curricula.

 

[MaryP]

Free education and birth control has done wonders with lifting people out of poverty all around the globe. I'd suggest we look closely at those results and try to find similar means of assistance without enabling sloth. It's a delicate balance.

We've had that in this country for many years. We spend billions to give kids at least a healthy start with WIC, Head Start, Medicaid coverage, free breakfast and lunch at school, free Pre-K and after school programs....
We spend billions more on early intervention programs to identify kids at risk of making bad choices and giving them a better path.
What else can we do?
We can encourage birth control, but not require it.

The only way to level the playing field is to make everyone equal economically and socially. To me, that sounds like final stage Communism, which has never been achieved anywhere despite the bloody attempts. I'm not a fan.

What are you suggesting, Calamity?

 

[reflechissez]

We've had that in this country for many years. We spend billions to give kids at least a healthy start with WIC, Head Start, Medicaid coverage, free breakfast and lunch at school, free Pre-K and after school programs....
We spend billions more on early intervention programs to identify kids at risk of making bad choices and giving them a better path.
What else can we do?
We can encourage birth control, but not require it.

The only way to level the playing field is to make everyone equal economically and socially. To me, that sounds like final stage Communism, which has never been achieved anywhere despite the bloody attempts. I'm not a fan.

What are you suggesting, Calamity?

The issues are complex. Your summation is simplistic.

 

[MaryP]

The issues are complex. Your summation is simplistic.

You've said that twice. I don't disagree, but let's hear it. What are we forgetting to mention?

 

[reflechissez]

You've said that twice. I don't disagree, but let's hear it. What are we forgetting to mention?

Not to you.

 

[MaryP]

Not to you.

Why not?

 

[Helix]

nature is part of the hardware. nurture is the software, and that can also affect the hardware. that's my theory.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Some want to say it's genetics. Others insist it's environment. Either way, one thing seems self-evident. We are either born to succeed or enter the world staring at likely failure.

Few would argue against the notion that being born into a stable environment yields better results than starting out in chaos. But, there is also a flipside. Few would argue that a person with exceptional intelligence cannot crawl out of chaos. And, someone with severe mental challenges is unlikely to do well regardless of the stability of his/her environment.

Everything hinges on the circumstance of our birth. Everything.

Thoughts?

I think most say it is a complex mixture of both nature and nurture.

 

[calamity]

We've had that in this country for many years. We spend billions to give kids at least a healthy start with WIC, Head Start, Medicaid coverage, free breakfast and lunch at school, free Pre-K and after school programs....
We spend billions more on early intervention programs to identify kids at risk of making bad choices and giving them a better path.
What else can we do?
We can encourage birth control, but not require it.

Well, if you look at global stats, as in per capita gdp, the poor in the US live better than those in well over a 100 other countries. So, it works.

The only way to level the playing field is to make everyone equal economically and socially. To me, that sounds like final stage Communism, which has never been achieved anywhere despite the bloody attempts. I'm not a fan.

What are you suggesting, Calamity?

Not that

 

[calamity]

Whenever I come across someone who succeeded beyond expectation from one of those horribly disadvantaged backgrounds, I almost always see them with a STEM degree. It makes sense.

Degrees in the science and tech fields require no connections to get high-paying jobs; only the degree is needed. That's why so many immigrants choose medical or engineering. They know it's a ticket to the middle class.

Seriously. It's a meal ticket.

A degree in Chemical Engineering will assure a six-figure income within five years of graduation. An Electrical Engineering degree is not far behind. Starting pay for both hovers around $75K, higher even for top students. Mechanical may pay a bit less at the outset, but after a few years in manufacturing or design, qualified candidates are groomed for management. And, no one cares who your daddy is.

Now, is getting a STEM degree easy? Uh, no. That's why they pay those that do earn them very well.

 

[devildavid]

Genetic inheritance is strong, but environment impacts gene expression. Not sure that there is a definitive percentage known to be the average for each one. And we can't forget that humans as a species evolve as a species. Focusing on individual humans ignores the big picture.

 

[Daisy]

Both nature and nurture are necessary in order for a human to develop properly...case in point...feral children...

 

[calamity]

Both nature and nurture are necessary in order for a human to develop properly...case in point...feral children...

Trouble is. The core tenets of language are learned by age 2, usually before we've even begun speaking in complete sentences. Oddly, it matters not which language we hear. Once the general rules are understood, we can suddenly learn to speak most any language without any difficulty at all up until about age six. After that, learning new languages becomes difficult.

Long story short, kids not exposed to any language before then are likely to never learn one at all.

 

[Daisy]

Trouble is. The core tenets of language are learned by age 2, usually before we've even begun speaking in complete sentences. Oddly, it matters not which language we hear. Once the general rules are understood, we can suddenly learn to speak most any language without any difficulty at all up until about age six. After that, learning new languages becomes difficult.

Long story short, kids not exposed to any language before then are likely to never learn one at all.

Exactly...which means nurturing is needed...

 

[calamity]

Exactly...which means nurturing is needed...

Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson prove that. Both were smart guys with decent opportunities because of it, but raised to become sociopaths they were. Ed Kemper would be another fine example of that.