They said "on average". Selecting 30 of the most talented from the poorest group does not contradict that.

On average more educated? Yes. More intelligent? Nah I see no data. Given the same access to resources I expect the kid from a poor family and a kid from a rich family to perform similarly.

▲

groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-]

I do not. Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?

And at a certain point the argument about equal access is entirely hypothetical. For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.

▲

tock a day ago | parent [-]

> Where do unintelligent people exist in your society?

Everywhere? Both in rich and poor households.

> For example can’t redo early childhood. So if that impacts your ability then it’s been impacted.

Ah I thought the argument was more about genes(aka born smart) and not something like nutrition.

I think a good thought experiment is Formula 1. Most top F1 racers come from super rich backgrounds. Does that mean that more money == better driver? Its mostly a accessibility problem.

▲

groundzeros2015 a day ago | parent [-]

Which premise do you disagree with?

1. Financial and career success are correlated with good test skills.

2. Good test skills are strongly influenced by genetics or early childhood.

If you agree with both then you expect some correlation between wealth and test performance.

▲

tock a day ago | parent [-]

I disagree that being born to rich parents == you have better genetics.

It's mostly privilege. And just being born in America is one of the biggest privileges wrt career and wealth.

	▲	groundzeros2015 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well I’ll be charitable and interpret == as correlation as we are talking about averages. From your conclusion you’re telling me wealth is completely random or the capabilities of children is completely random. Neither of those holds up to any scrutiny. I don’t know what being born in the US has to do with the conversation.