Nature vs Nurture: Born to Succeed

[NotreDame]

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?

It is a tantalizing mystery, right? To focus on a specific example of what falls within what you’ve said. Some people move from lower class to middle class. Others in the lower clsss do not move from lower class to middle class. The fact some do demonstrates such movement, such “success,” is plausible for others in the lower class.

But how plausible? How can the plausibility be expressed generally, if at all? At the individual level, what is it that makes movement upward more or less likely? So, why do some move up while others do not from the lower class?

I have pondered such questions, as you have, and maybe some common denominators can be agreed upon.

Thomas Sowell wrote a book titled “Race, Culture, and Society.” Among the ideas he discusses in the book is that certain values and behaviors are more conducive to “success” than others. For instance, the values and practices of emphasizing the importance of education, good grades, of learning, sacrificing some lesisure time for learning and educational development and then placing that into practice. The “practice” can manifest itself as parents reading to their children at a very early age, (perhaps reading to your kids at the age of two), being intentional with word exposure (not necessarily an adult vocabulary but “big” words for their current word usage, such as mischievous) the practice of reading, or doing puzzles, etcetera, before video game time or screen time. Other values of hard work, abstaining from substance abuse, and practicing those in front of the kids and rewarding such behavior (doing chores is routine, cleaning is routine, requiring the kids to do for themselves those tasks they can do).

Sowell observed Asians do well academically in almost any society they are found because of certain values, practices, and behaviors, in the home. He by no means argues these are sufficient or exhaustive of the factors that facilitate “success,” but he would say perhaps they are necessary or so important that their probability linked to success is significant.

And perhaps he’s right. Maybe certain values and behaviors, when followed, lead to “success” more often than not. I don’t know. I’ve not found enough “data” to confidently say he’s right. There is less to suggest his idea is incorrect.

Of course, he isn’t alone in his thinking that a certain values, behaviors, and practices are, I’ll say, very conducive to success. Max Weber in his work “The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” spend time asserting one could strip away the religious aspect from the “Protestant Work Ethic” and the ethic itself was conducive to achieving “success.” (Whether the “ethic” gave birth to capitalism is disputed and debated by both sides to this day, but the ethic itself is said to be conducive to “success.”)

But to my knowledge there aren’t a lot of studies of how many kids or percentage of kids are raised where these values and behaviors exist and how many do or don’t achieve movement from lower to middle class or day movement from within middle class to upper middle or upper class.

I’m not ignoring the possibility of perhaps institutional restraints. So, for instance, what impact does a school, which is considered to be attended by predominantly lower class kids, located in a lower class neighborhood, have upon a kid or kids in a home with those values, behaviors, and practices? Is the kids’ opportunities limited despite good grades? Is the ability to score well on the SAT and ACT handicapped in part because, despite good grades, the quality of education is not at a level to score well?

Of course there’s racial ceilings. I do not deny they exist. I wonder though, however, if a “successful” life can be achieved despite racial barriers? The WaPo several years ago focused upon middle and upper class blacks living in D.C. They had a few common denominators. They were know for having good grades, certain values, but also said they have hit a ceiling because of their race.

So, what is the reality? Some here have presumed a “rule” exists but what is the rule, factually?

 

[calamity]

It is a tantalizing mystery, right? To focus on a specific example of what falls within what you’ve said. Some people move from lower class to middle class. Others in the lower clsss do not move from lower class to middle class. The fact some do demonstrates such movement, such “success,” is plausible for others in the lower class.

But how plausible? How can the plausibility be expressed generally, if at all? At the individual level, what is it that makes movement upward more or less likely? So, why do some move up while others do not from the lower class?

I have pondered such questions, as you have, and maybe some common denominators can be agreed upon.

Yes, that is always the goal when in a non-political thread, which often is more or less a street fight...lol

Thomas Sowell wrote a book titled “Race, Culture, and Society.” Among the ideas he discusses in the book is that certain values and behaviors are more conducive to “success” than others. For instance, the values and practices of emphasizing the importance of education, good grades, of learning, sacrificing some lesisure time for learning and educational development and then placing that into practice. The “practice” can manifest itself as parents reading to their children at a very early age, (perhaps reading to your kids at the age of two), being intentional with word exposure (not necessarily an adult vocabulary but “big” words for their current word usage, such as mischievous) the practice of reading, or doing puzzles, etcetera, before video game time or screen time. Other values of hard work, abstaining from substance abuse, and practicing those in front of the kids and rewarding such behavior (doing chores is routine, cleaning is routine, requiring the kids to do for themselves those tasks they can do).

Seems like this should be obvious. Perhaps it is, but the execution of said plan is difficult. It takes work to be a good parent. Too few people in our culture are willing to put in the hours.

Sowell observed Asians do well academically in almost any society they are found because of certain values, practices, and behaviors, in the home. He by no means argues these are sufficient or exhaustive of the factors that facilitate “success,” but he would say perhaps they are necessary or so important that their probability linked to success is significant.

In my generation, especially in grade school and high school, it was the German kids who outperformed the American born. By college, I was exposed to more Asians. They outperformed both...mostly due to better study habits.

And perhaps he’s right. Maybe certain values and behaviors, when followed, lead to “success” more often than not. I don’t know. I’ve not found enough “data” to confidently say he’s right. There is less to suggest his idea is incorrect.

I believe we can cut it down to a simple formula. Involved parenting leads to better success. It's not the golden ticket, but it certainly provides advantages over disinterested parenting.
(Continued)

 

[calamity]

...
Of course, he isn’t alone in his thinking that a certain values, behaviors, and practices are, I’ll say, very conducive to success. Max Weber in his work “The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” spend time asserting one could strip away the religious aspect from the “Protestant Work Ethic” and the ethic itself was conducive to achieving “success.” (Whether the “ethic” gave birth to capitalism is disputed and debated by both sides to this day, but the ethic itself is said to be conducive to “success.”)

Work ethic is key. We fire people who lack it rather quickly. And, once someone has earned the reputation of "slacker," it is hard to shake. I would not equate it solely with Protestantism, however. As we've seen earlier, this ethic crosses religo-ethnic bounds as was evidenced by the success of Asians. We've also left out another highly successful group: those raised in the Jewish community.

But to my knowledge there aren’t a lot of studies of how many kids or percentage of kids are raised where these values and behaviors exist and how many do or don’t achieve movement from lower to middle class or day movement from within middle class to upper middle or upper class.

My father credits work ethic for his rise from immigrant barely able to speak English to running fairly large American companies. Surprisingly, or not, he does not credit his brains. Only his perseverance. I suspect he's selling himself short on the IQ part of the equation, but I have witnessed his tenaciousness. He outworked everyone whenever I saw him play.

I’m not ignoring the possibility of perhaps institutional restraints. So, for instance, what impact does a school, which is considered to be attended by predominantly lower class kids, located in a lower class neighborhood, have upon a kid or kids in a home with those values, behaviors, and practices? Is the kids’ opportunities limited despite good grades? Is the ability to score well on the SAT and ACT handicapped in part because, despite good grades, the quality of education is not at a level to score well?

Yes. One reason I do not shrug off the importance of my dad's brains in contributing toward his road to success is because it was rather obvious that he carried a good set of them in his head.

Of course there’s racial ceilings. I do not deny they exist. I wonder though, however, if a “successful” life can be achieved despite racial barriers? The WaPo several years ago focused upon middle and upper class blacks living in D.C. They had a few common denominators. They were know for having good grades, certain values, but also said they have hit a ceiling because of their race.

Certain ceilings are reached due to lack of connections, things usually gained through family or close friends. If race inhibits forming close friendships, then that would be a limiting factor for blacks, if for no other reason than the pool of other successful blacks to draw from for "connections" is limited, a direct result of our society delaying the advancement of black people throughout our early and mid history.

So, what is the reality? Some here have presumed a “rule” exists but what is the rule, factually?

Those born with brains to parents who instilled learning and work ethic, while providing emotional support and not abuse, are much more likely to do well than those who were not.

 

[devildavid]

It is a tantalizing mystery, right? To focus on a specific example of what falls within what you’ve said. Some people move from lower class to middle class. Others in the lower clsss do not move from lower class to middle class. The fact some do demonstrates such movement, such “success,” is plausible for others in the lower class.

But how plausible? How can the plausibility be expressed generally, if at all? At the individual level, what is it that makes movement upward more or less likely? So, why do some move up while others do not from the lower class?

I have pondered such questions, as you have, and maybe some common denominators can be agreed upon.

Thomas Sowell wrote a book titled “Race, Culture, and Society.” Among the ideas he discusses in the book is that certain values and behaviors are more conducive to “success” than others. For instance, the values and practices of emphasizing the importance of education, good grades, of learning, sacrificing some lesisure time for learning and educational development and then placing that into practice. The “practice” can manifest itself as parents reading to their children at a very early age, (perhaps reading to your kids at the age of two), being intentional with word exposure (not necessarily an adult vocabulary but “big” words for their current word usage, such as mischievous) the practice of reading, or doing puzzles, etcetera, before video game time or screen time. Other values of hard work, abstaining from substance abuse, and practicing those in front of the kids and rewarding such behavior (doing chores is routine, cleaning is routine, requiring the kids to do for themselves those tasks they can do).

Sowell observed Asians do well academically in almost any society they are found because of certain values, practices, and behaviors, in the home. He by no means argues these are sufficient or exhaustive of the factors that facilitate “success,” but he would say perhaps they are necessary or so important that their probability linked to success is significant.

And perhaps he’s right. Maybe certain values and behaviors, when followed, lead to “success” more often than not. I don’t know. I’ve not found enough “data” to confidently say he’s right. There is less to suggest his idea is incorrect.

Of course, he isn’t alone in his thinking that a certain values, behaviors, and practices are, I’ll say, very conducive to success. Max Weber in his work “The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” spend time asserting one could strip away the religious aspect from the “Protestant Work Ethic” and the ethic itself was conducive to achieving “success.” (Whether the “ethic” gave birth to capitalism is disputed and debated by both sides to this day, but the ethic itself is said to be conducive to “success.”)

But to my knowledge there aren’t a lot of studies of how many kids or percentage of kids are raised where these values and behaviors exist and how many do or don’t achieve movement from lower to middle class or day movement from within middle class to upper middle or upper class.

I’m not ignoring the possibility of perhaps institutional restraints. So, for instance, what impact does a school, which is considered to be attended by predominantly lower class kids, located in a lower class neighborhood, have upon a kid or kids in a home with those values, behaviors, and practices? Is the kids’ opportunities limited despite good grades? Is the ability to score well on the SAT and ACT handicapped in part because, despite good grades, the quality of education is not at a level to score well?

Of course there’s racial ceilings. I do not deny they exist. I wonder though, however, if a “successful” life can be achieved despite racial barriers? The WaPo several years ago focused upon middle and upper class blacks living in D.C. They had a few common denominators. They were know for having good grades, certain values, but also said they have hit a ceiling because of their race.

So, what is the reality? Some here have presumed a “rule” exists but what is the rule, factually?

This doesn't address the question posed by the OP. What causes this? What causes the values and behaviors?

 

[NotreDame]

This doesn't address the question posed by the OP. What causes this? What causes the values and behaviors?

To the contrary, my response does address the question posed by the OP. Now, if you’re having difficulty figuring out which side my post falls on, nature, nurture, environment, or whether it’s a little bit of all three in different segments of my post, lemme know. But my post isn’t some esoteric philosophy, or arcane information, just a good ol’ fashion, plain reading of my post will tell which questions I’ve answered and how.

 

[NotreDame]

Work ethic is key. We fire people who lack it rather quickly. And, once someone has earned the reputation of "slacker," it is hard to shake. I would not equate it solely with Protestantism, however. As we've seen earlier, this ethic crosses religo-ethnic bounds as was evidenced by the success of Asians. We've also left out another highly successful group: those raised in the Jewish community.

My father credits work ethic for his rise from immigrant barely able to speak English to running fairly large American companies. Surprisingly, or not, he does not credit his brains. Only his perseverance. I suspect he's selling himself short on the IQ part of the equation, but I have witnessed his tenaciousness. He outworked everyone whenever I saw him play.

Yes. One reason I do not shrug off the importance of my dad's brains in contributing toward his road to success is because it was rather obvious that he carried a good set of them in his head.

Certain ceilings are reached due to lack of connections, things usually gained through family or close friends. If race inhibits forming close friendships, then that would be a limiting factor for blacks, if for no other reason than the pool of other successful blacks to draw from for "connections" is limited, a direct result of our society delaying the advancement of black people throughout our early and mid history.

Those born with brains to parents who instilled learning and work ethic, while providing emotional support and not abuse, are much more likely to do well than those who were not.

Those born with brains to parents who instilled learning and work ethic, while providing emotional support and not abuse, are much more likely to do well than those who were not.

I agree, with the added qualification. To borrow from Thomas Sowell, humans are all born with brains (He disputes in his book blacks are genetically, my words “not smart,” but instead their intelligence capacity is stunted by exertal factors, those we’ve discussed.) Generally speaking, how well the brains’ capacity to achieve some degree of knowledge and intelligence is heavily influenced by that work ethic, emotional support, not abuse, and other values and practices. (I am I’d course excluding people born with a learning disability or some other mental or cognitive affliction that impairs).

Great dialogue man.

 

[calamity]

I agree, with the added qualification. To borrow from Thomas Sowell, humans are all born with brains (He disputes in his book blacks are genetically, my words “not smart,” but instead their intelligence capacity is stunted by exert all factors, those we’ve discussed.) Generally speaking, how well the brains’ capacity to achieve some degree of knowledge and intelligence is heavily influenced by that work ethic, emotional support, not abuse, and other values and practices. (I am I’d course excluding people born with a learning disability or some other mental or cognitive affliction that impairs).

Good point. I always wondered if it wasn't the "work" that separated average-low IQ (say, 100) from average-high (135-140). Mental training is like anything else, practice makes perfect. Shoot enough free throws, you will consistently hit 7 of 10, eventually. Spend thirty years doing brain exercises, and you end up out-performing your TV-watching peers in standardized tests.

None of that is to say sheer work ethic lands you in the NBA or on MENSA. Those places are reserved for the truly gifted. But, you can work yourself up from a C-student to one scoring solid B's.

 

[MaryP]

Well, that about sums it up. If we want more people in this country to succeed, we have to somehow teach the dysfunctional poor to be more like "us."

The problem is, their attitude is one learned over generations of defeat. Education and hard work doesn't necessarily make you successful. Not for people from the wrong side of the tracks who maybe don't talk so good or have the greatest barbering, have the wrong last name, don't know what topics are interesting to college educated folks in the break room. Money to survive from day to day is a necessity, not a dream they can defer while they sit in a classroom. So they drop out of school to take that job working on the fishing boat or hauling roof shingles, or being a drug mule.

A poor person's life is fraught with stressors we don't normally think about--keeping the electric on so the water pump runs and you can flush your toilet and wash your face, your clothes; paying rent on the storage unit where all your furniture and personal possessions are, so they won't be auctioned off while you and family squat in a motel room or car after being evicted for not being able to pay the rent. Poor people don't have family photo albums or baby's first booties--those were auctioned off to a stranger long ago. Poor people worry about what on earth they're going to put on the table tonight to feed their hungry kids.

So yup they get cranky, they get drunk or cop dope to take the pain away, if only for a little while. Sometimes they run away. Sometimes they flame up and punch someone, or heaven forbid, shoot someone. And the attitude toward the successful middle class folks who are installed as their useless teachers and insulting bosses, or just are better off than they are? You don't want to know. They sure don't trust us. Why would they?

Poor people need to be made secure in their basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy before anyone can expect them to reach for STEM degrees or parenting classes. Apparently jobs for all in T****'s term didn't solve the problem, because even before Covid, homelessness was growing. Jobs, maybe, but not jobs that met everyone's basic needs. So the rising tide lifts all boats theory sounds great, but I guess we needed a higher tide.

My apologies if this sounds like a sermon, but I've worked with and at times lived with poor people for a lot of my life, and I see another view.

 

[calamity]

Well, that about sums it up. If we want more people in this country to succeed, we have to somehow teach the dysfunctional poor to be more like "us."

The problem is, their attitude is one learned over generations of defeat. Education and hard work doesn't necessarily make you successful. Not for people from the wrong side of the tracks who maybe don't talk so good or have the greatest barbering, have the wrong last name, don't know what topics are interesting to college educated folks in the break room. Money to survive from day to day is a necessity, not a dream they can defer while they sit in a classroom. So they drop out of school to take that job working on the fishing boat or hauling roof shingles, or being a drug mule.

A poor person's life is fraught with stressors we don't normally think about--keeping the electric on so the water pump runs and you can flush your toilet and wash your face, your clothes; paying rent on the storage unit where all your furniture and personal possessions are, so they won't be auctioned off while you and family squat in a motel room or car after being evicted for not being able to pay the rent. Poor people don't have family photo albums or baby's first booties--those were auctioned off to a stranger long ago. Poor people worry about what on earth they're going to put on the table tonight to feed their hungry kids.

So yup they get cranky, they get drunk or cop dope to take the pain away, if only for a little while. Sometimes they run away. Sometimes they flame up and punch someone, or heaven forbid, shoot someone. And the attitude toward the successful middle class folks who are installed as their useless teachers and insulting bosses, or just are better off than they are? You don't want to know. They sure don't trust us. Why would they?

Poor people need to be made secure in their basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy before anyone can expect them to reach for STEM degrees or parenting classes. Apparently jobs for all in T****'s term didn't solve the problem, because even before Covid, homelessness was growing. Jobs, maybe, but not jobs that met everyone's basic needs. So the rising tide lifts all boats theory sounds great, but I guess we needed a higher tide.

My apologies if this sounds like a sermon, but I've worked with and at times lived with poor people for a lot of my life, and I see another view.

One reason I now see Clinton’s two terms in a more positive light is because programs like head start helped us to begin making a few gains in that direction back in the mid to late 90’s. Bush Jr’s administration GOP handouts for the rich, at the expense of the things helping the poor, squashed mush of that progress. Then, crashing the economy, by his admin not policing the rich’s outright theft via bogus loans to the poor, set the rest on fire.

 

[MaryP]

One reason I now see Clinton’s two terms in a more positive light is because programs like head start helped us to begin making a few gains in that direction back in the mid to late 90’s. Bush Jr’s administration GOP handouts for the rich, at the expense of the things helping the poor, squashed mush of that progress. Then, crashing the economy, by his admin not policing the rich’s outright theft via bogus loans to the poor, set the rest on fire.

Yup. The changes need to be longterm, not an idea tried for six or eight years and then dropped.

 

[NotreDame]

My apologies if this sounds like a sermon, but I've worked with and at times lived with poor people for a lot of my life, and I see another view.

Well, that about sums it up. If we want more people in this country to succeed, we have to somehow teach the dysfunctional poor to be more like "us."

Who is this “us”? What has been discussed isn’t reserved for an “us.”

And I want to correct this idea of “dysfunctional” anyone, much less “dysfunctional poor.” No one has suggested any “dysfunction.” No one has said there was a “dysfunctional poor.” You seem to be projecting here but what you’re projecting isn’t what was said or discussed.

Education and hard work doesn't necessarily make you successful. Not for people from the wrong side of the tracks who maybe don't talk so good or have the greatest barbering, have the wrong last name, don't know what topics are interesting to college educated folks in the break room. Money to survive from day to day is a necessity, not a dream they can defer while they sit in a classroom. So they drop out of school to take that job working on the fishing boat or hauling roof shingles, or being a drug mule.

Sure, and no one said education and hard work is sufficient for success. Although, the “don’t talk so good” is contrary to “education.”

It is plausible someone loses a parent or both parents, and out of necessity, they have to quit school to provide for their siblings of family. No one is taking the POV life circumstances doesn’t present people with the difficult choice of work to survive or finish high school. However, you present a scenario of some teen having to choose between the Scylla and Charybdis of choose to finish high school and possibly die because of it as there isn’t money to survive, or drop out of high school early to work for a meal and a roof.

The relevant question is how prevalent is the phenomenon your discussing? How many teens are confronted with the necessity of choosing between finishing high school but starve to death or quit high school early and work to survive. I don’t know.

Regardless, the dialogue was one of generality and the strong link between certain factors and success. No one is suggesting what has been discussed is easy for everyone to do or impart, or follow. Life happens. Life can be and is difficult. Many people, children, teens, and adults face difficulties and achieve success.The relevant question is why do some succeed despite the difficulties? What’s the secret recipe, if any, to succeeding in spite of some difficulties? Are there common denominators among those who did succeed and those who have not?

I think there are common denominators shared by those who succeed in spite of life’s hardships. I’ve mentioned some of them but by no means exhaustive. They’re not guarantees for success. But they are very conducive to achieving success.

A poor person's life is fraught with stressors we don't normally think about--keeping the electric on so the water pump runs and you can flush your toilet and wash your face, your clothes; paying rent on the storage unit where all your furniture and personal possessions are, so they won't be auctioned off while you and family squat in a motel room or car after being evicted for not being able to pay the rent. Poor people don't have family photo albums or baby's first booties--those were auctioned off to a stranger long ago. Poor people worry about what on earth they're going to put on the table tonight to feed their hungry kids.

That’s descriptive and informative, but nobody took the POV poor people are living an idyllic, boating, stress free life. Stress is a part of life. Stress isn’t exclusive to the poor. I was born into and raised in a lower class family and neighborhoods. That didn’t impair my parents’ emphasis of good grades, school work, doing homework before playing or leisure activities, reading, having to work a summer or two to learn how to provide for myself, by my own style of shoes and clothing. What you’ve described doesn’t keep parents from emphasizing certain values and behaviors to their children.

My apologies if this sounds like a sermon, but I've worked with and at times lived with poor people for a lot of my life, and I see another view.

You are projecting and I understand why this has happened. But what you’ve projected isn’t what has been discussed. No one has derided, minimized, or ridiculed the plight of the poor or their difficulties. I was born and raised in a poor family and poor neighborhoods, I have lived that “view” as a child and a teen.

 

[MaryP]

Who is this “us”? What has been discussed isn’t reserved for an “us.”

And where exactly did you deduce “dysfunctional” anyone, much less those who are poor? No one has said there was a “dysfunctional poor.” You seem to be transforming what was said to fit a preconceived notion of what you think is being said and discussed.



Sure, and no one said education and hard work is sufficient for success. Although, the “don’t talk so good” is contrary to “education.”

Yes, it is plausible someone loses a parent or both parents, and out of necessity, they have to quit school to provide for their siblings. No one is taking the POV life circumstances doesn’t present people with the difficult choice of work to survive or finish high school. However, you present a scenario of some teen having to choose between the Scylla and Charybdis of choose to finish high school and possibly die because of it as there isn’t money to survive, or drop out of high school early to work for a meal and a roof. L

The relevant question is how prevalent is the phenomenon your discussing? How many teens are confronted with the necessity of choosing between finishing high school but starve to death or quit high school early and work to survive. I don’t know.

Regardless, the dialogue was one of generality and the strong link between certain factors and success. Yes, there are some instances, which may be exceptions, where some aren’t given the chance because they lose both parents when they are a sophomore and choose to drop out of school to help mom and the family.



That’s descriptive and informative, but nobody took the POV poor people are living an idyllic, boating, stress free life. Stress is a part of life. Stress isn’t exclusive to the poor. I was born into and raised in a lower class family and neighborhoods. That didn’t impair my parents’ emphasis of good grades, school work, doing homework before playing or leisure activities, reading, having to work a summer or two to learn how to provide for myself, by my own style of shoes and clothing. What you’ve described doesn’t keep parents from emphasizing certain values and behaviors to their children.



You are projecting and I understand why this has happened. But what you’ve projected isn’t what has been discussed. No one has derided, minimized, or ridiculed the plight of the poor or their difficulties. I was born and raised in a poor family and poor neighborhoods, I have lived that “view” as a child and a teen.

I'm sorry you took it that way. I didn't think you or Calamity were deriding or ridiculing the plight of poor people. (Neither am I.) It just seemed to be presupposing a certain shared view of things, and I don't see that as being true in many cases. I realize my views weren't exactly the main gist of your argument. I apologize for going off track a little, but my remarks were more toward Calamity, who seems interested in breaking the cycle.

Your parents already 'got it.' That's good, and it worked out for you. My dad came from a very poor family, too, but his parents also 'got it' and all 7 kids ended up modestly middle class and their children have done better than that. Those aren't the parents we're talking about; they don't become the stubborn problem facing society.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm sorry you took it that way. I didn't think you or Calamity were deriding or ridiculing the plight of poor people. (Neither am I.)

It just seemed to be presupposing a certain shared view of things, and I don't see that as being true in many cases. I realize my views weren't exactly the main gist of your argument. I apologize for going off track a little, but my remarks were more toward Calamity, who seems interested in breaking the cycle.

Well, that’s what “we” are all trying to figure out, what is the reality? Our reality, at the moment, is bits and pieces of our experience and other resources, such as the Thomas Sowell and Max Weber books I cited.

Why is it Asians do achieve , generally, higher scores on standardized testing and academically in general? Is it, as Sowell, the emphasis on certain values, practices, and behaviors? I think so. “We find that the Asian-American educational advantage over whites is attributable mainly to Asian students exerting greater academic effort and not to advantages in tested cognitive abilities or socio-demographics. We test explanations for the Asian–white gap in academic effort and find that the gap can be further attributed to (i) cultural differences in beliefs regarding the connection between effort and achievement and (ii) immigration status.” https://www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8416

The “effort” and and the “beliefs” between “effort and achievement” is different. Those beliefs and effort aren’t exclusive to Asians. They can be taught and practiced by any race, and to varying degrees. This isn’t to say that approach is sufficient for success but it does play a very important role.

And such beliefs, practices, and values aren’t exclusive to any socioeconomic class. So, did those in the lower class who moved into the middle class have good grades and test scores, reflecting an importance on education, learning, sacrifice of personal time to do homework, read, study, etcetera? How many who did move upward share that feature? I’d like to know because my common sense informs me that the number is significant.

Life can be and is at times very difficult for the poor. This was true of my own family. Yet, my dad room the time to ensure my homework was done before I played, grades he rendered unacceptable resulted in loss of extracurricular activities at school, and he day and night drilled good grades, good grades, good grades. And this came from a man who rode his bike twenty miles to work and twenty miles home for some number of years before he could buy a beat up junker. We were a family of six, wearing clothes purchased from a second hand store, like Goodwill, and my gym shoes originated from a second hand store, and the ones with plastic soles was routine until the gym teacher told my parents rubber soled gym shoes were necessary. Only saw the dentist when necessary, such as a tooth ache, which means I hardly ever saw the dentist for any routine checkups, cleanings, etcetera. We only saw a doctor when a fever over 100 manifested. Yearly checkups? Nope. Doctor visits for vaccinations? Nope. We went to the poor person clinic for vaccinations, the health department.

So, I empathize with your account of the difficulties of life confronting poor people, that’s not foreign to me. Yet, my parents, especially dad, drove home certain values, such as hard work, good grades, importance of education, sacrificing leisure time for homework, studying, reading, etcetera.

Those values, practices, and behaviors greatly assist to “break the cycle.” That’s what I’m saying.

Your parents already 'got it.' That's good, and it worked out for you. My dad came from a very poor family, too, but his parents also 'got it' and all 7 kids ended up modestly middle class and their children have done better than that. Those aren't the parents we're talking about; they don't become the stubborn problem facing society.

But the “aren’t the parents we’re taking about” can be those parents, right? If my parents “were those parents,” and your parents “were those parents” then the other parents can be those parents, they can teach those values and behaviors to their kids. So what’s the difference? Isn’t the difference based on choice? My parents chose to emphasize certain values and behaviors. Isn’t it true others choose not to?

Sorry if I misconstrued your comments.

 

[MaryP]

then the other parents can be those parents, they can teach those values and behaviors to their kids. So what’s the difference? Isn’t the difference based on choice? My parents chose to emphasize certain values and behaviors. Isn’t it true others choose not to?

Yes! And I'm pointing out why, from what I've observed, many of them choose not to. That's all.

I'm not condemning them or hopeful about changing their minds either; they're a tough crowd, as performers say. Give them a real chance and things might be different.

 

[devildavid]

To the contrary, my response does address the question posed by the OP. Now, if you’re having difficulty figuring out which side my post falls on, nature, nurture, environment, or whether it’s a little bit of all three in different segments of my post, lemme know. But my post isn’t some esoteric philosophy, or arcane information, just a good ol’ fashion, plain reading of my post will tell which questions I’ve answered and how.

No, it does not. Your post says that behavior causes the result, but does not address the underlying root cause of the behavior. It is akin to saying if we just do the right things, good things happen. That is obvious. But what causes us to engage in the behavior in the first place? Nature or nurture, and in what mix and what has more or less influence. It doesn't answer the question "are we born to succeed?"

 

[NotreDame]

Yes! And I'm pointing out why, from what I've observed, many of them choose not to. That's all.

I'm not condemning them or hopeful about changing their minds either; they're a tough crowd, as performers say. Give them a real chance and things might be different.

So, what’s the remedy? @calamity stated, accurately in my opinion, something to the effect that very early exposure to reading and extensive word usage, vocabulary, was essential. Based on the studies, that seems right.

More money for headstart with an emphasis on reading and vocabulary exposure?

 

[NotreDame]

No, it does not. Your post says that behavior causes the result, but does not address the underlying root cause of the behavior. It is akin to saying if we just do the right things, good things happen. That is obvious. But what causes us to engage in the behavior in the first place? Nature or nurture, and in what mix and what has more or less influence. It doesn't answer the question "are we born to succeed?"

To the contrary, it does. The fact you can’t figure that out and what to be bellicose about it and incorrectly accuse me of not answering the question is on you.

It is akin to saying if we just do the right things, good things happen. That is obvious

Not, it isn’t obvious because I said nothing “akin” to the above.

And for the painfully oblivious, that’s you, I didn’t argue causation. My position isn’t your drivel of, “Your post says that behavior causes the result.” Nope. That’s not what I said. Not even close.

And my view does in fact answer whether it is nature, nurture, or a mixture of both. It isn’t surprising you can’t grasp that since you converted my view erroneously into one of causation and this elementary notion of do “right things” and “good things happens.”

 

[devildavid]

To the contrary, it does. The fact you can’t figure that out and what to be bellicose about it and incorrectly accuse me of not answering the question is on you.



Not, it isn’t obvious because I said nothing “akin” to the above.

And for the painfully oblivious, that’s you, I didn’t argue causation. My position isn’t your drivel of, “Your post says that behavior causes the result.” Nope. That’s not what I said. Not even close.

And my view does in fact answer whether it is nature, nurture, or a mixture of both. It isn’t surprising you can’t grasp that since you converted my view erroneously into one of causation and this elementary notion of do “right things” and “good things happens.”

So when are you actually going to answer the question posed by the OP? Yo still haven't. You point out Asian success. Is that nature? Nurture? What does their being Asian have to do with it?

 

[NWRatCon]

Of course there’s racial ceilings. I do not deny they exist. I wonder though, however, if a “successful” life can be achieved despite racial barriers? The WaPo several years ago focused upon middle and upper class blacks living in D.C. They had a few common denominators. They were know for having good grades, certain values, but also said they have hit a ceiling because of their race.

So, what is the reality? Some here have presumed a “rule” exists but what is the rule, factually?

I've cited these 26 charts before, which factually demonstrate the existence of the tilt, as well as this video, which demonstrates it viscerally. Yes, it's possible to overcome the myriad of obstacles placed in the path by disadvantage, and the formula for success is repeated by those who are the exceptions. But they are not the norm.

I am, by nature, a lazy person. I prefer hedonism to hard work, and self-indulgence to discipline. But, I think by nearly any measure, I've had a successful life, even in an environment (the military) that rewards discipline and hard work over raw talent. Indeed, I think it is one of the best environments for distilling merits and instilling a work ethic that leads to success in the outside world.

But I'm also painfully aware of the advantages that I started with, as a product of a stable, middle class, white family in the relatively crime-free suburbs. Both my parents - and their parents - had college educations. Half of my siblings obtained at least one advanced degree, as have most of my cousins, and their children. The head start that we all had is demonstrated throughout the clan. In fact, it goes back through several generations - even our farming forebears (there are many) obtained educations and required it of their offspring.

So, the soil we are planted in has an overwhelming influence on life success, but the ethics we are instilled with can further our goals, even when there are disadvantages presented. The problem, really, is how much of the soil available is polluted with disadvantages. Even hardy plants wither from lack of nutrients and water.

 

[joko104]

Luck is a major factor.

 

[MaryP]

So, what’s the remedy? @calamity stated, accurately in my opinion, something to the effect that very early exposure to reading and extensive word usage, vocabulary, was essential. Based on the studies, that seems right.

More money for headstart with an emphasis on reading and vocabulary exposure?

Head Start is interesting. Studies show it 'levels the playing field' for children during those first critical years (K-3) when they are learning to read. From about 3rd grade on, they perform about the same as children who didn't attend Head Start. However, a long term study shows Head Start graduates are more likely to finish high school and have a more positive attitude toward school.

Literacy is essential, obviously, for moving into the middle class. So is a basic tolerance for academics, at least enough to get the training or basic education necessary to move ahead. Reading to children from an early age is a good thing in that regard. It's cheap, easy, and most anyone can get their hands on a few children's books. Reading fluency and interest in reading books gives any child a jump in school.

Keep Head Start for sure. I talked to some elementary school teachers who took a beatup van their school district wasn't using and filled it with (second hand) kids' books and they take it into the neighborhoods, to the suppers and the parks, the parking lots of the grocery stores, wherever kids and parents go, and run a lending library with no due dates. Take a book! Bring it back when you're done! Sure they lose books, but they gain books too once word gets around. Kids love it. The teachers offer free workshops and potluck at school for parents, cluing them in on what their kids are learning in reading class (like phonics) so parents can help.

But ( you knew a but was coming) education is only one factor, and it can't win alone. Somehow, the rest of their lives, the part when they aren't in school, needs to be at least basically stable. Did you know low income housing won't allow anyone with a felony drug conviction in their past to live there? Do you know how many poor people go to prison for drugs? Around here, the sheriff calls our jail 'poor man's detox' and he's not kidding. So while he's in jail, the wife and kids get into stable low income housing and after a couple years when Dad gets out, they either have to move or he has to live elsewhere. There are a million snafus like that.

I could write a mile long post about some of those other factors. I don't know how it gets solved. To me it just seems that basic, stable housing for everyone is a must, as a start. Kids moving willy nilly from one school to another when parents have to move for finances is a disadvantage. Kids living in shelters and vans aren't leading the stable lives we did.

I do think it's going to require kids brought up in better circumstances to raise their kids better, and that takes a long time. We're talking about generational changes. It takes consistency and long term planning, and I don't see our country ready to commit to that.

 

[NWRatCon]

It is plausible someone loses a parent or both parents, and out of necessity, they have to quit school to provide for their siblings of family. No one is taking the POV life circumstances doesn’t present people with the difficult choice of work to survive or finish high school. However, you present a scenario of some teen having to choose between the Scylla and Charybdis of choose to finish high school and possibly die because of it as there isn’t money to survive, or drop out of high school early to work for a meal and a roof.

The relevant question is how prevalent is the phenomenon your discussing? How many teens are confronted with the necessity of choosing between finishing high school but starve to death or quit high school early and work to survive. I don’t know.

(If you don't know, it's because you're not paying attention. ) I am much closer to MaryP's understanding of it than yours because I've been exposed to it. I grew up in St. Louis and the environs, until I left there in the mid 80's. The disparities and entrenched disadvantages there are stark to any observer. [The McCloskeys are the poster children for the circumstance.]

I don't view this discussion as a purely academic endeavor, but a question of lives and deaths. Too much of your discussion (and, dear lord, Sowell's) views these "difficulties and hardships" as "speed bumps" - too easily overcome - rather than the solid, massive brick walls they represent in the real world. It is easy in our well-developed and protected world (and ivory towers) to view other peoples' obstacles as relatively small, but it is quite another thing to live in that world and be exposed to those conditions on a daily basis. It's a grind, a marathon, and it is very difficult to even imagine the horizon, much less see it.

There are, of course, exceptions, but that is what makes them exceptional. I think, going back to the OP, that it is important to look at both what makes them exceptional (instilled work ethic, parents creating safe spaces for them to grow in a chaotic environment), and the environment that creates the obstacles to success in the first place. It is fine to exhort people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps (and never appreciating the ironic root of the aphorism)", but far more important to ensure they have the boots in the first place.

 

[NWRatCon]

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.

I think an important element embedded into this is that it benefits all of society. The more we enable self-sufficiency in our population the better all of us will be, so it is not a zero-sum proposition.

 

[NotreDame]

So when are you actually going to answer the question posed by the OP? Yo still haven't. You point out Asian success. Is that nature? Nurture? What does their being Asian have to do with it?

The question has been answered. And I also provided some data and factors answering whether, at least in part, the “Asian success” is nature or nurture. And my answer illuminated it had nothing to to do with being “Asian,” which makes your question of “What does their being Asian have to do with it?” inexplicable l, except for, someone as yourself, can’t grasp what I in fact did say.

In case you didn’t notice, Calamity, Mary P, NW Rat, are having a constructive dialogue on the very question of the OP and the answers as to whether it is nature, nurture, both, and the extent of the obstacles. You are the only person so far having difficulty grasping what I said, as you obfuscate by the silly statement I haven’t answered the question when it doesn’t take an Einstein to read my comments ans know I have.

 

[NWRatCon]

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.

I think you make a good point for the exceptions. But, it leaves out, probably 95 percent of the remaining population. I don't think that the majority are either capable of attaining that education, or need it for a stable or successful life. But, sufficient education and opportunity are the keys.

I think, socially, we need a whole-of-society approach to the question. Certainly, as the OP points out, not everyone is born with the same inherent tools and talents. But, I think the vast majority have sufficient inherent capabilities to be successful in life. It is the environment that they are brought into that more often controls the outcome.