Comment by ivoras | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivoras | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure if most of the commentators here are joking or just being too subtly sarcastic, but truly the best predictor of a person's success is the success of his parents during his formative years. It's not a hard-coded rule, but it's statistics: if, given two persons of equal age, gender and health, you would have to bet how they turn out, your best bet would be to look at their parents and assume the same will happen to them, and not to give them an IQ test and draw a conclusion from there (on average, everyone has an average IQ).

So, yes, while there are always exceptions, poor families will mostly yield people who will not move away from poverty.

It is as unreasonable to say to those people "move out and get a better job" as to say to a clinically depressed person "oh cheer up, it's all in your head": no, such problems are actually not the problems of attitude and positive thinking, but have external causes and factors (i.e. external to the mind).

One example of such a factor could be poor work habits learned from their parents - but still it's a trait derived from those particular parents. Unless the person sees or learns about "better" work habits somehow, he will in all probability not conclude that is one of his problems all by himself.

Nitpick (since I don't dispute your main point): Parents aren't the sole source of influence in a person's formative years. Kindergarten, neighborhood, peer group, school are just as if not more influential. In fact, some promising ways to inject higher quality human capital than some families are able to provide on their own rely on those other channels.

What do you think best predict what kind of neighborhood someone grows up in, what kind of kindergarten that can be afforded, peers someone has a chance get to know and what schools they will attend?

The chain of causality from parent's success (or lack thereof) to children's success doesn't only go via the parents direct influence on the children, but probably more through the environment they have the means and foresight to provide.

In the case of adopted children, the success of the biological parents is a better predictor of the child's success than that of the adoptive parents.

So -- success of parents, yes, it's a strong predictor. During formative years, not really relevant.

Citation please. (genuine request)

Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

Be careful reading it though, facts are racist.

The article was discussion class mobility, not race.

The article says that improving material standards hasn't improved problems with drugs/jobs/jail/family. And then immediately suggests improvements to material standards as a remedy.

But at what point do we draw the line of responsibility? There are many examples of poor/struggling people that made the best of what they had and made sure that their children had a good start in life.

Yes, my parents were poor and struggling. But they pushed through, made sacrifices and made sure that me and my sister had a good start in life. Free from the burdens that they bore.

To me, the line of responsibility does not cross over a generational boundary. All these individuals that have rough and tough childhoods, are responsible for their own actions. And they're also responsible for not ruining an innocent's or unborn's future by bringing them into this world, and then abandoning them by not doing their best to break the cycle of violence, poverty and lack of education.

Even if responsibility lands on the individual, rather than background circumstances, it's still reasonable to try to figure out how to break the cycle, isn't it? It's possible to hold someone guilty, and still have empathy.

"It's possible to hold someone guilty, and still have empathy." Of course, that's called charity! And is probably a very integral part of the progress of our society. But, let's be honest, most people when they discuss these topics simply dismiss responsibility from the injured/suffering party and are very quick to offload it onto society.

It's kind of sad, really. Because at the end of the day, there are a lot of individuals who will always suffer no matter how much we help them (or how much money we throw at them). And then we go ahead, with our noble, but misguided consciences and tell them it's not their fault. Relieving them of the single greatest motivator for their own success, perhaps their last.

You were lucky enough to have parents who pushed through and made sacrifices. Not everyone is so lucky. That is exactly the point the article is making. You're blaming the children for having inadequate parents.

>"You're blaming the children for having inadequate parents."

Of course not. I'm blaming the children for having inadequate parents and forcing the same on to their own children! Quite a big difference.

As my mother says: "I don't care which one of you is responsible, I want you both to stop fighting and clean up this mess you made, now".

Way to blame the victim. So bully does something, causes a fight, parental figure sees and intervenes... and finally, blames both of them for the resulting fight, compelling them both to take responsibility and fix the mess. That's horrible, I hope you didn't get beaten(child-abused) if you refused to clean up the mess.

If you don't believe in dualistic free will, then responsibility lies entirely with factors beyond the control of the poor, thus there can be no personal blame.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com