There is one sentence about this in the article, stated without support, possibly as a joke. The rest of the article is about replication failure in social science studies.
Title shouldn't have been changed to be so clickbaity.
Real title is: "Daniel Sanabria, psychologist: ‘The best predictor of professional success isn’t cognitive performance, it’s whether your parents have money’"
It's not just having money, it's keeping it. Plenty if stories if lottery winners being back where they started soon enough. Plenty of poor athletes and musicians too who once had it.
It takes intelligence and discipline to build wealth and if your parents have it they may pass that on to you. Sometimes that doesn't make you wealthy but they are still good things to inherit from your parents.
It’s easier to keep it if everyone around you has it too
> Plenty of poor athletes and musicians too who once had it.
Again, easier to lose it if those around you don’t have it. Then you help out, buy mom a house, pay for medical care. Pay for nephews school, cousin’s rehab, brother needs a loan, etc.
But look at some of the Asian immigrant communities who came to the USA dirt poor and worked the lowest tier jobs. Asians as a class now out-earn whites[0].
That they've managed this in the face of rampant anti-Asian discrimination in the US is all the more to their credit.
Sure, look at the Hmong in the US. Poor and rural before they came to the US, and still, on average, pretty poor and doing pretty badly in the US.
Meanwhile, I have a lot of Chinese, Hongkongese, and Korean coworkers whose families are well-off enough that they don't need to work for a living, have relatives who don't work for a living, etc.
So yes, lots of first-generation immigrants in US come from serious money overseas, and the ones who don't have worse outcomes on average.
Agree completely. You only have to spend a little time on Hacker News to see how over-rated intelligence can be.
There are plenty of people who can make articulate, complex arguments on a topic but are just not connected to reality. Often it can just mean a greater capacity for self-delusion.
> “We’re not talking about mental health,” Sanabria clarifies. “That’s a different subject.”
This quote was the explanation from the article for why they dismissed physical exercise as a valid way of improving one's cognitive performance. Because it only directly improves mental health and not your cognitive performance.
That is a rather strange take. Sure, yeah, if we remove the one thing (mental health) that arguably nets the most improvement to your own life that affects every single area of it, including how others perceive you, then yeah, sure, we can dismiss exercise. Not sure why one would want to do that though, since their "that's a different subject" take doesn't sound that convincing, unless they want to argue that being mentally healthy doesn't contribute to cognitive performance (which imo would contribute to being more successful in a professional environment).
21 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 56.0 ms ] threadReal title is: "Daniel Sanabria, psychologist: ‘The best predictor of professional success isn’t cognitive performance, it’s whether your parents have money’"
Related:
https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-stu...
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16334883
It takes intelligence and discipline to build wealth and if your parents have it they may pass that on to you. Sometimes that doesn't make you wealthy but they are still good things to inherit from your parents.
It’s easier to keep it if everyone around you has it too
> Plenty of poor athletes and musicians too who once had it.
Again, easier to lose it if those around you don’t have it. Then you help out, buy mom a house, pay for medical care. Pay for nephews school, cousin’s rehab, brother needs a loan, etc.
That they've managed this in the face of rampant anti-Asian discrimination in the US is all the more to their credit.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-...
Meanwhile, I have a lot of Chinese, Hongkongese, and Korean coworkers whose families are well-off enough that they don't need to work for a living, have relatives who don't work for a living, etc.
So yes, lots of first-generation immigrants in US come from serious money overseas, and the ones who don't have worse outcomes on average.
There are plenty of people who can make articulate, complex arguments on a topic but are just not connected to reality. Often it can just mean a greater capacity for self-delusion.
The world is full of "clever fools".
This quote was the explanation from the article for why they dismissed physical exercise as a valid way of improving one's cognitive performance. Because it only directly improves mental health and not your cognitive performance.
That is a rather strange take. Sure, yeah, if we remove the one thing (mental health) that arguably nets the most improvement to your own life that affects every single area of it, including how others perceive you, then yeah, sure, we can dismiss exercise. Not sure why one would want to do that though, since their "that's a different subject" take doesn't sound that convincing, unless they want to argue that being mentally healthy doesn't contribute to cognitive performance (which imo would contribute to being more successful in a professional environment).