The explicit content of the second sentence was that your father had the “confluence of knowledge, intelligence, and lack of risk-aversion” that allowed your success.
Your knee-jerk response was that the claim was that it was all luck.
The reading comprehension problem is yours, along with the laziness. I see Lobohan has already addressed this, as was of course his right.
On reflection, I can appreciate the merit of this “the substance of X is that…” approach, because regardless of what X actually is, its* substance* can be declared to be anything one wants.
The substance of Buddhism is, every man for himself.
But we were still not wealthy. And if ignorance is so pervasive, how did my dad evade its crushing grip? If lack of options is so debilitating, how did he create options for himself?
See the problem? Even if you pretend that I was advantaged, was he? And if not, then what’s the difference? My thesis is that “generational poverty” is escapable with the desire to escape and the willingness to work. You say I didn’t need that – fine. But clearly my dad did. So my argument is still shown true.
Sure they do. But you advanced those qualities of his as MY luck that he had them.
I disagree. But this is why we have laws and courts. If the decision went against me, I’d acknowledge my expectations were out of step.
Me, too. Free reading. Learned lots.
Within the context of this message board, I am prepared to recognize that Bricker is not advantaged.
Like, even a little.
Thanks. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Based on that reply and still within the context of this message board, I’m prepared to suggest Bricker may be disadvantaged.
All the more reason for you liberals to shower me with privileges.
Oh, that’s not likely but I’m confident we won’t conspire to deprive you of your vote, at least.
Wow! No shit?
Oh, we do, we put up with your sorry ass.
It’s not all luck. It’s mostly luck.
Basically playing musical chairs with 10 players and one chair.
And thus cried the conservative, “anyone can win!”
Which specific parts in either cite support the idea that it’s mostly luck?
From the first cite, found by the most casual perusal imaginable:
I realize math and statistics are not your strong suit, or perhaps more accurately that math and statistics are of little interest to you when they conflict with your ideology, but phrases I’ve bolded speak to chance, i.e. luck, and I didn’t even read the whole article.
By the way, I eagerly await your counter that those particular cites don’t speak to “mostly”.
He is likely to broaden your understanding of the word “mostly”. Yours is far too narrow.
The article had nothing to do with luck. It was refuting the commonly held belief that social mobility is worse today than it was a generation ago. The use of the word “chance” is not synonymous with “luck”, in that contex. Perhaps you should have read the whole article.
Besides, was the discussion about going from the bottom to the very top (which is what that article measured) or simply escaping grinding poverty and entering the middle class?
No, they don’t. They speak to,the percentage of people that have the will and desire to make the requisite sacrifices to attain the social mobility in question, and whether such percentages have changed over the years.
Why is that “luck?”
The authors made absolutely no attempt to relate cause and effect in that study. The were not looking at how people rose form the bottom to the top, but whether or not they do more so recently than they did in the not too distant past. It was purely a statistical analysis. They did not state or imply that it was roll of the dice. A little modesty about understanding statistics might be in order here, Bryan.
So, you’re saying it’s ALL due to will and desire to make the requisite sacrifices? No-one’s life is ever affected through chance?