Author Topic: How do people make $100+ salary?  (Read 54999 times)

big_slacker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #350 on: January 29, 2018, 03:31:09 PM »
Agree that there *IS* such a thing as talent/genetics/ability. And this matters at the very upper level of performance. See the NFL example below. (Russell Wilson isn't even 6' and has a ring BTW, haha!) Not everyone can perform at that level despite putting in x amount of reps, hours, etc. because EVERYONE at that level is doing the same but is also genetically gifted in some way.

But nearly everyone can perform to a good highschool or state athlete level with a lot of drive, coaching, reps, etc. And I believe making $100k is more analogous to the good highschool/state athlete than it is to the TRULY elite level where you've only got 1700 or so people selected from a population greater than 300 million.

I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent.  At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.

By the time you start school there are absolutely differences.  Some kids will have done four years of Montessori preschool and some will have watched four years of cartoons, but those are also life experiences and not the result of innate talent.

You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things.  I 100% agree that when comparing people of similar traits, or even those within a reasonable factor (maybe +/- 15% however you measure that), then effort and exposure (environment) matter more.  But there genetic makeup (whether intelligence or physical attributes) matter - and a one hour hold baby may appear equal but the DNA would probably suggest otherwise.  And keep in mind that the brain isn't fully developed until after teens.

The key point here is to recognize that when a student (or employee) struggles, it is not because they are dumb.  We all start out dumb.  It is only because they lack the required practice or experiences to achieve subject mastery.  I guarantee you that the NFL quarterback has thrown more paases than you before his first day on the job, and run more laps and drills, and spent more time in the weight room than you.  He's not "gifted" unless his one-hour-old self showed the same gift.  The same is true for efficient computer programmers or kids who breeze through AP chemistry.  They all learned and you can too.

Pretty sure I could have thrown 1,000,000 passes a day, every day, and I still wouldn't be quarterback (let alone NFL) material.  Sure, I can and do understand the how to throw it, the mechanics, the physics, even the wind.....but for some reason I just couldn't throw it the same way.  Also not being 6'4" kind of hurts my chances....and there is the mental.  Tom Brady is as good as he is because of practice and ability....he is not the fastest or most athletic.  But his processing ability is above all others.  Oh yeah...he is 6'4"

Talent is earned.  Talent is just skill made to look easy by practice.  If you want to be good at something, stand up and put in the hard time instead of lamenting your apparent lack of natural gifts.  "I'm not gifted" is an excuse repeated by people who don't believe in their own ability to succeed.

Yes.  There are plenty of people out there that wasted their talent (lazy) and/or didn't have the opportunity (environmental exposure). But you are crazy if you think pure ability/talent/genetics play no role.


dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #351 on: January 29, 2018, 07:11:29 PM »



I believe that all cognitively normal baby brains are equivalent.  At one hour old, no healthy child is any smarter than any other healthy child.

Studies on identical twins separated at birth suggest that intellectual function is mostly genetic and highly heritable - specifically, how certain parts of our brain develop (Brocas and Wernickes areas -- which control language development, and the frontal region, which, among other things, plays a huge role in cognition).  These specific areas of the brain show a 95-100% correlation between one identical twin and the other – they are essentially the same. Fraternal twins on the other hand, show only a 60-70% correlation. 
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 07:20:58 PM by dustinst22 »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Location: England
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #352 on: January 29, 2018, 10:04:40 PM »
I would disagree about the Talent portion. Take Leo Messi and Christiano Ronaldo for instance. Messi is a natural born talent while Ronaldo put in a shitload of hard work to achieve similar results imo. The two play different styles of the game, but Messi is the one that makes it look effortless.

I'd say that highlight Sol's point, rather than the other way round. Messi lacks many of the natural physical attributes of a great player - he's tiny due to a growth hormone deficiency and gets injured easily.

Messi famously grew up in a family where he played constantly from toddlerhood with his older brothers and his cousins (professional players.) He joined his local club when he was aged 4, where his father was a coach. He joined one of the top Argentinian clubs when he was 6 and his whole family was relocated to Barcelona when he was 11. He's spent pretty much his whole life playing.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #353 on: January 30, 2018, 05:31:54 AM »
There is also another element and that is common sense. Some people are full of common sense and some have none whatsoever. How many times have you heard of extremely rich, successful talented people who buy all kinds of luxury items such as mansions here and in Europe, jets, big party boats, luxury cars. Each mansion requires a full staff to take care of inside and ground maintenance. They buy jewels and have hanger on buddies and women who are their best friends that need money. Next thing you know these talented people are broke and work flipping burgers. All their friends are gone too.

Common sense applies to everyone. I have seen people who live from paycheck to paycheck put money into vending machines as soon as they get to work, then for lunch, then for snacks during the day. Probably $10 a day for crap. Instead of planning ahead and pack food for work to avoid the machines. Then they whine they have no money. Then there are the people that get a refund from their taxes and run right to Walmart to spend it rather than put it in a rainy day fund or at the very least stock up on non perishable foods.

driftwood

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #354 on: January 30, 2018, 06:02:18 AM »
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.

Bearblastbeats

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #355 on: January 31, 2018, 06:19:45 AM »
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.

I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.

big_slacker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #356 on: January 31, 2018, 06:35:05 AM »
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.

I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.

Why would someone even need attention to detail or proofreading when they have a volunteer editorial staff on every forum on the internet? Those people are probably honing their skills so they can make $100k+ doing it professionally. :D

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #357 on: January 31, 2018, 08:30:14 AM »
I think the first step towards earning a $100K + salary is working on your attention to detail and proof-reading. If you don't, you could be stuck in the $100+ salary forever.

I think someone made this joke one each page thus far. Also, I'm not getting paid to post here so tbh idgaf. Thanks for your input.

There's no need to be snippy when people make jokes, even when they're at your expense.

But you've identified one alternative strategy.  If you're not interested in working super hard to raise your salary, maybe you should identify a job that doesn't pay very well but allows you lots of freedom to do whatever you want, like goof off.

Some of us call that job "early retirement" but it usually requires working pretty hard to earn a high salary, first.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #358 on: January 31, 2018, 08:56:50 AM »
(responding to this idea more than this particular quote, since several of you expressed the same opinion)

Sure but you can be gifted with more than big hands or being 8 feet tall.  You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn.

I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.

I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else.  Every baby is born without it.  We all have to learn how to do it.  I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.

In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill.  Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer.  Reading is learned.  Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned.  Persuasive writing is learned.  None of these things are abilities you are born with.  Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others.  The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.

To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics.  If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people.  I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.  Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.

Genes code for proteins.  That's ALL they do.  There is no gene for intelligence, or musical ability, or a love of the sea.  These things are entirely environmental, because there is no mechanism for storing them in your DNA.  I think most people too easily fall prey to the convenient misconception that their "genes" somehow define them and predetermine their traits and abilities, and that's basically bullshit on every level.  You are born with DNA that determines the way your physical body grows, not what you do with it, so if we're talking about something you "do" with your body then we're talking about a learned skill that is not inheritable.  If we're talking about what your body "is" then there's probably a genetic component, though even there I think we all recognize that physical traits (like muscle size or endurance or coordination) can be trained over time.

Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse.  Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work.  Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer.  It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father.  That's all on you.

Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities.  If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired.  If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.

You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things.

I'm not conflating them, which implies accidental confusion, I'm deliberately suggesting they are the same thing.  Your ability to retain/absorb/learn things is the product of your developmental opportunities.  Kids who attend preschool do better in high school, not because they are smarter but because they have learned how to learn at an early stage of their development.  Kids who attend 3rd grade football camp are more likely to end up in the NFL, not because they are genetically superior but because they get their fundamentals down early.  You can absolutely learn how to learn, by building a base of the required prerequisite skills.  That learning starts the day you're born, but we all start from the same place.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 09:47:07 AM by sol »

Tabaxus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #359 on: January 31, 2018, 10:14:24 AM »
(responding to this idea more than this particular quote, since several of you expressed the same opinion)

Sure but you can be gifted with more than big hands or being 8 feet tall.  You can also be gifted with a better performing brain (ie higher IQ) - while everyone is born knowing nothing and have to learn everything there is a great variance in each persons ability to learn.

I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.

I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else.  Every baby is born without it.  We all have to learn how to do it.  I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.

In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill.  Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer.  Reading is learned.  Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned.  Persuasive writing is learned.  None of these things are abilities you are born with.  Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others.  The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.

To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics.  If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people.  I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.  Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.

Genes code for proteins.  That's ALL they do.  There is no gene for intelligence, or musical ability, or a love of the sea.  These things are entirely environmental, because there is no mechanism for storing them in your DNA.  I think most people too easily fall prey to the convenient misconception that their "genes" somehow define them and predetermine their traits and abilities, and that's basically bullshit on every level.  You are born with DNA that determines the way your physical body grows, not what you do with it, so if we're talking about something you "do" with your body then we're talking about a learned skill that is not inheritable.  If we're talking about what your body "is" then there's probably a genetic component, though even there I think we all recognize that physical traits (like muscle size or endurance or coordination) can be trained over time.

Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse.  Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work.  Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer.  It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father.  That's all on you.

Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities.  If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired.  If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.

You are conflating exposure to development opportunities with ability to retain/absorb/learn things.

I'm not conflating them, which implies accidental confusion, I'm deliberately suggesting they are the same thing.  Your ability to retain/absorb/learn things is the product of your developmental opportunities.  Kids who attend preschool do better in high school, not because they are smarter but because they have learned how to learn at an early stage of their development.  Kids who attend 3rd grade football camp are more likely to end up in the NFL, not because they are genetically superior but because they get their fundamentals down early.  You can absolutely learn how to learn, by building a base of the required prerequisite skills.  That learning starts the day you're born, but we all start from the same place.

You're running into the teeth of scientific research here, so we're not just talking about one opinion vs. another, though the research isn't conclusive.  Drawing a line straight to racism and eugenics:  people used bad science to go there.  That doesn't mean traits aren't inheritable on a genetic level, it means that (a) there's no tie between race and any meaningful non-physical trait and (b) with respect to eugenics, we have decided as a society that it's horrifying to ACT ON IT.  I don't think there's a scientific view that it isn't possible to "breed your way to a more intelligent species," it's that we've decided that would be monstrous and so we don't do that. 

(Of course, "we" did, in fact, do that, in terms of getting from early primates to humans.)

Stepping away from that aspect of things, though, this distinction that you're drawing between learned skills and innate characteristics isn't a realistic one.  A lot of these "learned skills" are going to be "learned," or not, when a kid is way too young to have any influence whatsoever over it.  From the kid's perspective, it's just as innate as anything else.  If a kid ends up woefully behind in ability to learn, etc., because the kid has inadequate life experiences, that's not on the kid, and only so much of that can reasonably be overcome.  So it falls into the luck bucket, right along with innate characteristics. 

Absolutely the case that a lot of poor circumstances can be overcome. But if we're talking about baselines, the idea that kid with proper circumstances growing up doesn't start way, way ahead of kid with awful circumstances--in a way that effectively mimics a much higher innate IQ for the fortunate kid--is not realistic.

dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #360 on: January 31, 2018, 12:00:41 PM »
I mean, it's a nice idea and all -- the blank slate concept.  I can appreciate it from an idealist standpoint.

But one cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence from scientific studies on twins.  Scientists estimate 50% of intelligence is due to genetics.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Age: 37
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #361 on: January 31, 2018, 12:13:57 PM »
I don't think there's a scientific view that it isn't possible to "breed your way to a more intelligent species," it's that we've decided that would be monstrous and so we don't do that. 

(Of course, "we" did, in fact, do that, in terms of getting from early primates to humans.)

The quantum physicist David Deutsch in his book The Beginning of Infinity makes a compelling argument that, in essence, we are already as intelligent as it is possible for an entity to be.  We have evolved into entities that are capable of creating explanatory knowledge, what he calls "universal explainers."  We can understand anything and everything.  This is a capability unique among known life forms, so the difference between us and our evolutionary ancestors (and all extant other forms of life on earth, our evolutionary cousins) is a difference in kind, and not merely a difference in degree.  It is not possible, he argues, for there to be aspects of reality that we are qualitatively unable to understand; to say otherwise is a claim that there are aspects of reality that are simply inexplicable--or, in other words, is an appeal to the existence of the supernatural.  It follows that it is not possible to breed (or otherwise create) an entity that has more innate intelligence than each of us (with normal cognitive function) already has.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 12:15:34 PM by brooklynguy »

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Age: 32
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #362 on: January 31, 2018, 12:22:37 PM »
Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer.  Reading is learned.  Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned.  Persuasive writing is learned.  None of these things are abilities you are born with.  Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others.  The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.

To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics.  If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people.  I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.
No flirtation*.  I'm 100% fine with other humans having more physical ability and/or better mental faculties than myself regardless of study/training/practice.  That doesn't mean I think they deserve more rights/freedoms than I do.  Also, if there are people I am "better" than with regard to mental and physical capacities/realities I do not deserve anything different.  We're all human.  We deserve the same rights by the law and in controlling how our genes are passed/not-passed on to new generations.

*-I guess it depends on your definition of eugenics.  As a microcosm, we as individuals already consciously and subconsciously tend to pair with mates that have characteristics we find attractive or at least we do not select mates that we find the least attractive.  i.e. On an individual level we are already trying to non-randomly breed with the best characteristics.  The 'attractive' characteristics are then more likely to pass on to a new generation and so on.  But if this is natural and not state-imposed, I'm not going to say that is anything close to eugenics.

For some reason I feel like watching Idiocracy or reading The Selfish Gene right now...

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #363 on: January 31, 2018, 12:24:03 PM »
I recognize that I'm going to be a minority opinion on this topic, and I'm okay with that.

No disagreement there.

I think that your "ability to learn" is a learned skill, too, just like everything else.  Every baby is born without it.  We all have to learn how to do it.  I agree there are differences, but those differences are the product of your experiences and not your innate abilities.

The capacity and ability to learn is as innate as it gets, IQ is one measurement. I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning.  Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort?  I person with a low IQ can compensate but it will be much more difficult than the person with the high IW>

In general, everything except your physical traits is a learned skill.  Dancing is learned, and there is no "gene" for being a good dancer.  Reading is learned.  Study skills and deductive reasoning are learned.  Persuasive writing is learned.  None of these things are abilities you are born with.  Every single person has to learn them, and some people learn them more thoroughly than others.  The differences are not genetic, they're behavioral.

Again, that is not the issue of disagreement.  All these things and almost all things are learned skills as you say.....the ability to learn and as an offshoot the predisposition of strengths (left brain vs. right brain/math vs. language) are the disagreement. 

To believe otherwise is to flirt with racism and eugenics. 

Really? First racism has nothing to do with it - that is bias/prejudice against race and that's it.  Has nothing to do with other physical or mental attributes...and certainly not learning or IQ.  Eugenics - sure it can be done. 

If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.  Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.

Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part.  I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas.  So not enough to be a dominant class of people.  That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization. 

Anytime you look at your own failures and blame your DNA, you're embracing a lame excuse.  Your DNA doesn't make you sleep in on Monday mornings and miss work.  Your DNA can't make you a bad computer programmer.  It can't make you a bad dancer, or a bad reader, or a bad father.  That's all on you.

Maybe, but it certainly can put a ceiling on many of those things.  But now I need to go correct my failures and work hard to become the leading scorer in the NHL, play in next years superbowl, win a nobel prize for some unfounded yet to be thought breakthrough in astrophysics, and excel at salsa.  Whew - I am going to be busy for the next 12 months. 

Obviously, I make exceptions for real disabilities.  If you're born paralyzed, your ability dance will be impaired.  If you're born with Downs Syndrome, your reading and reasoning skills will top out earlier than most.

Why would there be exceptions....by your very definition anybody can learn anything, including the ability to learn itself, all it takes is work.


Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1013
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #364 on: January 31, 2018, 12:59:17 PM »

You're running into the teeth of scientific research here, so we're not just talking about one opinion vs. another, though the research isn't conclusive.  Drawing a line straight to racism and eugenics:  people used bad science to go there.  That doesn't mean traits aren't inheritable on a genetic level, it means that (a) there's no tie between race and any meaningful non-physical trait and (b) with respect to eugenics, we have decided as a society that it's horrifying to ACT ON IT.  I don't think there's a scientific view that it isn't possible to "breed your way to a more intelligent species," it's that we've decided that would be monstrous and so we don't do that. 

Ooh.
The bolder part is a wickedly good line.
I like that a lot and will definitely use it in the future.

Btw, I’m a retired neuroscientist, and yeah, this isn’t a matter of opinion no matter how strong or well written that opinion may be. The science just doesn’t support that all non pathological human brains are identically plastic with experience. Nor is the science clear enough in any way shape or form to really definitively say anything about the extent of genetics vs experience, so literally no one in the entire world can possibly state a firm position on it. And in fact, the more knowledgeable about the brain someone is, the less likely they are to have a firm stance on anything so vague and undefinable at this point in time.

The last sentence of every single paragraph in every single high end neuro text book or paper I have ever read was usually along the lines of “the mechanism is poorly understood” or “this requires more research”.
There’s more we don’t know about the brain than we do know. That’s why I moved on, I got bored of slamming my head against the wall and I was actually making progress in my research!

Speak to a true expert in almost anything and the first words out of their mouth are likely to be “well, I’m not an expert”.

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #365 on: February 01, 2018, 10:38:15 AM »

If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.  Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part.  I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas.  So not enough to be a dominant class of people.  That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization. 

The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #366 on: February 01, 2018, 10:51:53 AM »
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?

Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon.  Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport.  White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges.  I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters.  I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits.  There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.

I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity.  I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics.  And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming.  Bollocks.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #367 on: February 01, 2018, 11:34:29 AM »

If you honestly believe that some people are naturally superior to others by virtue of their birthright, then it's not much a stretch to believe that whole genetic classes of people are superior to other genetic classes of people. I think we've collectively put that argument to bed, as a society, by recognizing that "race" is just as much a social construct as it is a biological one.  Your genes determine the way you look, not who you are.
Yes, I honestly believe that but not for as broadly as you imply...unless we go back to the eugenics part.  I absolutely believe that there are classes of people that have genetic superiority for some things but not all things - there are people better at logic, math, strength, sensory, whatever....but the lack or are average in other areas.  So not enough to be a dominant class of people.  That said, the smartest people are aware of this and engage people of varying strengths to aggregate a class of superiority - some might call it civilization. 

The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).


tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #368 on: February 01, 2018, 11:40:01 AM »
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?

Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon.  Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport.  White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges.  I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters.  I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits.  There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.

Agree with this but just when I think you are coming back to reality.....

I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity.  I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics.  And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming.  Bollocks.

......You jump right out again.  Don't get me wrong, reality is certainly less fun so why you don't to be here. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #369 on: February 01, 2018, 12:01:44 PM »
I did not read every post, so am responding to OP.

I have been in the IT field and am a bit over $160K in base at this point. 

This is after 25 years in the field, so as some have said, does not happen overnight, thought it did happen for me pretty quickly.  I was over $100K in about 7 years. 

It takes work.  No one is going to pay you that amount of money for long without giving them benefit.  Certainly it might be possible to hop jobs every 2-3 years until they figure out you are not worth the money and you need to go fool someone else, but to sustain it it helps to have an excellent work ethic (I work until the job is done, not worry about the clock, but that does not imply working 60+ hours per week.  I average 45-50 hours.), excellent communication skills, negotiation skills, and constant learning.  I still read multiple books a year about business.  My special niche is that I work hard to tie business and IT together.  I saw some people talking about being in tech but maxing out at $80-$120K as developers or technicians.  That again is because the benefit they provide cannot be leveraged beyond an individual contributor.  Best developer in the world can only write so much code in a year.  But a solid leader who can replicate their capabilities in business alignment, customer service etc. across a whole team now makes multiple people better and valuable to the organization.  In my field I still seem to be a bit of unicorn in being capable of simply and clearly articulating how any project can benefit the organization.  Other business executives like that clarity, and they are willing to pay for it.  But yes, I know business, accounting, IT, psychology and a few other disciplines pretty well, and it takes a lot of dedication to get to intermediate level or above (that's when you can start to sound competent to someone else in the field that is not your primary) in anything.

I also have moved for jobs a few times, and I saw willingness to move as a way to get there.  Could I have done it without that?  I think so, but it was certainly less difficult this way.  Especially when you are recruited far enough to be offered a relocation package, they do not usually do that for low paying jobs.  But it takes a unique skill set to interest someone to also pay $30K+ to move you and your family on top of your salary, so you are back to the paragraph above on how you get there.

So that's how I got there and stay there. 

Schaefer Light

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #370 on: February 01, 2018, 02:08:53 PM »
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?

Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon.  Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport.  White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges.  I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters.  I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits.  There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.

I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity.  I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics.  And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming.  Bollocks.

Comparing hockey to sprinting isn't a valid comparison, in my opinion.  I think sprinting speed is more of a natural trait (which can also be improved upon with training) while sports (like hockey, basketball, or any other sport) are a combination of skills and natural traits.  However, sports are a lot easier to play if you also have the right traits.  I don't think black kids are so much better at basketball simply because they spend that much more time practicing than white kids.  To me, it's crazy to think that genetics doesn't play a role in this.  I played basketball until the sun went down growing up, but I was never going to be as good as the kids who were faster and taller than me.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5581
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #371 on: February 01, 2018, 02:33:17 PM »
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?

Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon.  Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport.  White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges.  I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters.  I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits.  There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.

I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity.  I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics.  And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming.  Bollocks.

Comparing hockey to sprinting isn't a valid comparison, in my opinion.  I think sprinting speed is more of a natural trait (which can also be improved upon with training) while sports (like hockey, basketball, or any other sport) are a combination of skills and natural traits.  However, sports are a lot easier to play if you also have the right traits.  I don't think black kids are so much better at basketball simply because they spend that much more time practicing than white kids.  To me, it's crazy to think that genetics doesn't play a role in this.  I played basketball until the sun went down growing up, but I was never going to be as good as the kids who were faster and taller than me.
I mean, I played a lot of volleyball in my day.  Practiced a ton, was pretty good at it too.  Fast, accurate and all that.

But in the end...I'm still 5'2".  Even with nice big thighs and a good vertical...at the end of the day, I'm still 5'2".

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #372 on: February 01, 2018, 03:07:21 PM »
The last time a white sprinter won gold in the Men's 100M in the Olympics was in 1980, so I don't think it's any stretch to think that black athletes run faster than whites.  I figured that out on the elementary school playground ;).

Do you make the same argument about white hockey players?

Because to my eye, sport specific athletic ability is a cultural phenomenon.  Black communities play basketball from an early age, and see it as a viable career path, so they dominate the sport.  White communities play at power from an early age, so they are more likely to become lawyers and judges.  I don't believe that black people are incapable of being judges or hockey players, and I don't believe that white people are incapable of being basketball players or sprinters.  I think these activities, like race itself, are complicated interactions of cultural inertia and not cleanly defined genetic traits.  There is always a spectrum, and the correlation between traits and race is an arbitrary division.

I do believe that some ethnicities are more likely to have physical traits that allow them to excel at the highest levels of a physical activity.  I don't believe the same is true for mental activity, because the brain is much more strongly controlled by environment than genetics.  And remember that this discussion started with a claim that someone was genetically ill suited to computer programming.  Bollocks.

There have been a least a couple studies on this.  They found that blacks tend to have longer legs (higher waists) for a given overall body height.  They also tend to have a smaller limb cross section.  This translates into a higher center of gravity.  And because sprinting is basically a controlled fall, a higher center of gravity means the legs have a higher turnover (to "control" the fall), so blacks have a natural speed advantage.  And because whites have a longer torso for a given overall body height, this gives them an advantage in competitive swimming - because swimming is basically riding a wave and a longer torso makes this more effective. 

Anyway, I'm still hung up on introvert vs. extrovert, or high reactive vs. low reactive.  These are demonstrable traits that you are born with and can't change.  So right there we have differences in the brains of individuals from birth.  I admit I've been reading these posts a bit slack jawed.

dogboyslim

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #373 on: February 01, 2018, 03:15:48 PM »
Ignoring genetic aspects that now seem to be the primary point of the thread, it takes a willingness to continue to apply your strengths.  This site has a lot of accounting/IT/Engineer types, so good at math, willing to put in the effort to continue to learn more about how things work and put the time into solving problems.  If you want a good salary, this is probably needed.  If you want to really make money, you should own a business or several.

Personally I'm ~$250k-$300k in total comp annually in a technical leadership role (employee of a large company).  Being a bit vague to preserve my anonymity: My skill is that I understand what the tech people do, I understand the business, and I can explain to business people how applying what the tech people do will make them more money, and I couple that with detailed timeframes, investment costs and tracking reports so they can visualize the payoff early after delivery.  I started my career at $35k 20 years ago.  I was always able to speak to the business people, so once I got all the credentialing I needed, I ended up in management.  I don't do much if any tech work anymore, but I continually monitor multiple work streams, approve governmental regulatory submissions where its my name on the form, keep up my continuing education and maintain client relationships.  I work an average day of 8am-6pm including a working lunch and 1-2 hours every weekend, not counting the random emails I get about this or that topic which require immediate replies.  When I started my day was 6:30 to 3:30 at the office, followed by 2-3 hours of industry related study each night.  I did that for the first 10 years or so.  Now I get most of my education through conferences and reading while traveling and through my clients.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #374 on: February 02, 2018, 12:01:04 AM »
megapost incoming...

People that don't acknowledge the significant role luck and genetics plays are fooling themselves (and others, often enough).

I acknowledge that luck plays a huge role.  In general, I think the role played by genetics is vastly overstated.

Let's review what your DNA does: it tells your body what proteins to produce.  That's it.  There is a protein that makes eyes blue, so there's a gene for that.  There is no protein for being tall, so there is no gene for that.  Height, like intelligence, is the result of the complicated interplay between thousands of different genes (and epigenetic factors) and your environment, specifically your childhood nutrition, sleep, and hormone levels and the way they all alter gene expression.  The DNA is just the blueprint.   The child of the two tallest people on the planet will not grow up tall if you starve him.  Environment and experience absolutely count for height and intelligence WAY more than they count for eye color, because eye color is genetically determined and height and intelligence are only genetically available, not specified.  Individuals can fall far outside of their parental average, for all kinds of reasons.

One of which is luck.  When I started out by saying that talent is finely honed skill, I meant talent for things that can be learned.  Having blue eyes is not a talent.  Being good at math is a talent, but it is a talent that anyone can learn with enough dedicated practice, because it is a learned skill.  There is no genetic component to mathematical ability.  If your brain works like an average brain, you can learn math.

A baby has blue eyes on day one.  That's genetics.  He is not good at music or cooking or sailing on day one, because those are all learned skills.  There is no way for protein synthesis to make you good at music or cooking or sailing, so they have no genetic component.  This makes the test easy; can you identify the trait when the person is an hour old?  If not, it's probably not genetic.

There are some things I've done that I learned incredibly quickly.  Horseback riding and fencing come to mind.

I don't dispute that people learn different skills at different rates.  I'm arguing that how quickly you learn a skill is entirely based on how well you have previously mastered the prerequisite skills that come before.  You're going to learn to unicycle much faster if you're already competent on a bike and a tightrope.  You're going to learn the oboe much faster if you're already practiced at cello and piano.  For basic coordination skills like fencing, how quickly you learn in grade school is largely based on how much time you spent play sword fighting on playgrounds as a toddler.  Ever meet a 15 year old kid who can't throw a football?  Did you think it was because his genes prevented him from learning?  I think it's because he never spent a thousand hours throwing footballs.

are you really going to blame the kid that gets a terrible start (watching cartoons all day) for the fact that the kid got a terrible start?  Much of that "terrible start" stuff cannot be overcome, and goes directly back into the "luck" bucket from the perspective of that kid.

Of course I do not blame the unlucky kid who got a bad start.  I also don't blame his genetics.  I blame his experiences, which in the case of this example are unlucky ones. 

my experience as a trainer/supervisor provides a good lab setting to watch different people try tasks that are completely new and I would say there are absolutely brain differences within normal brains.

NO TASK is completely new.  Everything you've ever done is based on something you've done or seen before, or you wouldn't know how to try it.

I've taught over a hundred different people how to juggle.  Some of them learned quick, some of them learned slow, but everyone with two working arms can learn.  How quickly you learn is based on how comfortable you are with balls, which generally means kids who played a ballsport in school learn quick and kids who didn't learn slow.  Baseball players learn faster than lacrosse players, who learn faster than kids from the band, who learn faster than kids who only watch cartoons.  There is always a foundation of required skills that you have to master before you can move on to something new.

This is how pedagogy works.  If you have a student who doesn't understand math facts, they are going to struggle with algebra.  If he can't do algebra, he won't get trig.  Without trig he'll fail calculus.  But if you find a kid who is failing calculus, that doesn't mean he was born genetically incapable of doing calculus.  It means his teachers failed to give him the required building blocks to help him along the required path.  You can just give him an F and say he's dumb, but a better answer is to find out where his deficiencies are and address those first, then later you can come back to calculus if necessary.

The same process is true for anything you learn, including being an NFL quarterback.  The fact that some people get there faster is entirely due to their particular developmental pathway.  They got the fundamentals down right the first time, early, with lots of reps and professional guidance, and that allowed them to move on to footwork and reads and play calling.  No baby is ever born knowing how to call plays.  Everyone learns.  Because there is no protein that codes for play calling ability, there is no genetic component to play calling ability.  If you are a "talented" play caller who makes it look easy, it is only because you are incredibly skilled.  Not because of your DNA.  Talent is earned, not born.

bodybuilding.  You can take all the steroids you want and if you train 6 hours a day and never get injured you'll still never look anything like a Schwarzenegger, Coleman, or Wheeler.  Because they're just better, and nothing you could ever do in the world would be able to make up for that.  Those dudes got lucky in the genetic lottery and took advantage of it.

I'm not sure bodybuilding is a skill, and so I don't think you can be talented at it.  You might as well have a "who's tallest" contest.  Genes matter in physical traits, not learned skills, and even then they are strongly influenced by environment (in this case diet, training, and roids).

I don't remember the research supporting the presupposition that all morphologically normal infant brains are the same and have the exact same plasticity.

Did I say that?  I said talent isn't genetic, and that newborn babies have no skills.

I agree that newborns are not born with identical plasticity.  If your momma does crack, you're starting out at a handicap.  I don't blame genetics for that, I blame your (prenatal) environment just like I do for most everything else about your brain.

Brains are incredibly complicated.  They evolve and adapt over time in response to your environment WAY more dramatically than a bodybuilder's physique does to his.  Kids kept locked up in cages turn out stunted, even if they are born with totally normal brains.  Kids born to crack moms can turn out totally normal, with the right care.  Even people who sustain massive head trauma can adapt entirely new pathways to work around the missing portions of their brains, just like some crash victims can learn to walk again.  Masai warrior kids raised in NYC develop a NYC accent and taste in music.  Your brain is probably the least genetically predetermined thing about you!

Tom Brady is as good as he is because of practice and ability....he is not the fastest or most athletic.  But his processing ability is above all others.  Oh yeah...he is 6'4"

Right!  He's talented because he works hard, not because he was born that way.  Ask Michael Jordan what he thinks about the role of hard work in his success.  The role of genetics is vastly overstated by the general public, who mostly don't really understand what DNA is or what it does anyway. 

Brady's talent is earned, with practice, not born to him.  So is Russel Wilson's, and his early career stats are eclipsing Brady's even though he's only 5'11".

Studies on identical twins separated at birth suggest that intellectual function is mostly genetic and highly heritable

Twin research is seriously suspect, not least because it is blatantly unethical to do the experiments correctly.  Separated twins still share identical environments for at least 9 months, and usually longer, and are then most commonly raised in very similar circumstances, in terms of language and education and prosperity, if for no other reason that we don't let Australian aborigines adopt white babies from Ohio.  The sample sizes in twin studies are so laughably small as to make any conclusions little more than WAGs.  Several of the most well known practitioners are well known racists who used their work to support ridiculous ideas about white superiority.  But the work is still sexy and the ideas reinforce our own latent stereotypes, which is why you seem them in popular science articles whenever one comes out.

Color me unimpressed, when it comes to twin studies.  Don't be fooled just because you saw it on Oprah.

You're running into the teeth of scientific research here,

How do you figure?  I have yet to see any reputable science that reliably ties skills learned as an adult to a person's DNA. 

Remember that we're talking about "talent" here, not eye color.  I know that physical traits are heritable, but skills are not traits.  Skills are learned.  When you look at an Olympic athlete and say "Wow she's really talented" what you are really saying is that this person makes their skill look effortless, which is because she's practiced it an insane amount of time.  She wasn't born good at gymnastics.  Anyone can learn. 

You don't look at an 85 pound 15 year old girl with no gymnastics training and call her talented, even if she is an identical twin with a gold medalist.  Her physical size and shape are not talents. 

Quote
Stepping away from that aspect of things, though, this distinction that you're drawing between learned skills and innate characteristics isn't a realistic one.  A lot of these "learned skills" are going to be "learned," or not, when a kid is way too young to have any influence whatsoever over it.  From the kid's perspective, it's just as innate as anything else.

I think the distinction is still absolutely sound.  I'm not ascribing blame to it, just describing it. 

I don't blame a kid who wasn't taught how to read.  I'm saying that his inability to read is not because he's genetically incapable of it.  His talent for reading is entirely a product of his life experiences, not his protein synthesis as dictated by his DNA.

Racists believe it's his DNA.  They spent three centuries arguing that black people were designed by God to be strong but subservient, that they were too dumb to learn to read through no fault of their own and nothing could ever be done about it.  They couldn't be taught anything except manual labor, because their heritage predetermined their abilities.  Can we all now agree that's total bullshit?  Even after centuries of unnatural selection through forced eugenics programs (aka breeding), black people can still learn to read!  And do other smart people stuff!  The human mind is remarkably responsive to developmental environment.

The difference is that a man raised in slavery may struggle to learn to read as an adult, but his children will be totally fine if they are raised correctly.  The son's "talent" for reading is 100% environmentally determined, not genetically determined.  The talent is earned by practice.   You are not born with it or without it.

I'm shocked that anyone would seriously disagree with that assessment in 2018.  2017 (nazis!) made it a little more believable, unfortunately, but still upsetting.

The capacity and ability to learn is as innate as it gets, IQ is one measurement.

I don't think so.  I think that early early childhood cognitive development is hugely influenced by things most people don't even think about, like how much parents speak with their baby, and how much time a baby spends crawling/climbing/running instead of sitting/laying, and exposure to properly balanced nutrients and environmental contaminants (don't eat paint chips, kids), and how much time is spent playing with other kids vs watching tv.  I agree that there are differences in the ability to learn (not the same thing as what an IQ test measures, of course), I just think most parents are taking the easy and reassuringly pleasant cop-out by assuming their actions don't matter.  Everything matters!  Every time you tell your kid to go away so you can play on your phone you're cognitively impairing your child's development.  Every time you serve McDonalds for dinner you're impacting the way their body grows.

Your DNA is given to you, so it is innate.  But it's just the book of possible blueprints, not the finished product.  How you live absolutely determines which page you're using to build your body and mind.  The fact that you personally have little control over many of these early life decisions does not mean the page was irrevocably chosen at conception.

Quote
I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning.  Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort?

I used to be that kid!

So of course I have.  So has my 14 year old who got a D on his first honors chemistry test and then came home and told me he was dumb because his buddy John is just naturally smart and he got an A on the same test.  Then he spent two months studying chemistry every night, and now my kid has an A and John has a B+, and suddenly the idea of "talent" makes a lot more sense to my son.  Talent is earned with practice.  It is not god-given.  It is not destiny.  It is the product of your life choices and experiences.

John got an A on his first chem test because John's parents used to drill him on science last year, so he had a good foundation of prerequisite skills.  My son wasn't as far along that path yet, and now he is.  He made up the difference with effort.  He learned chemistry, and in the process learned that talent can be acquired. 

He went through the exact same process when he first joined the swim team.  Slowest kid in the pool, came home and told me he'll never be any good because there were kids two years younger than him who turned in faster times.  A year later he's put in a thousand hours at the pool and his time are dropping with every single meet, and he's no longer the slowest kid in the pool.  As it turns out, hard work pays off!  His 14-year-old mind is blown. 

He no longer blames his genetics for a bad lap time or a D on a chemistry test, and you shouldn't either.  You are not a bad computer programmer because you are dumb, you are bad because you haven't yet learned how to be as good as someone else who HAS learned it.  Don't passively accept your fate as if it cannot be changed, and don't blame your supposed bad luck for not being talented.  Do the work.  Get talented through practice.  You (and here I mean the generic you) can learn.

To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it.  You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to.  You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like.  Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.


« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 02:50:23 PM by sol »

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8053
  • Age: 60
  • Location: NorCal
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #375 on: February 02, 2018, 01:01:38 AM »
Replying to a few different people so I won't quote anyone in particular.

First I'll start with whoever was talking about officers that make around 100K in the NYC suburbs..The price of living in the northeast is obviously crazy and it is fairly obvious that the 100K goes a lot further down here in LCOL Texas.

On the sweet/fun part: The job is awesome! In 10 years I have worked Patrol, Gangs, and now Human Trafficking. I get paid what I consider way too much to investigate crimes and put really bad people in jail for decades. I get to use intelligence, people skills, acting and outside of the box thinking plus I do not have anyone micromanaging me, which is a plus. Add in the fact that I get 4 weeks of vacation time that I have to use every year, plus another 6 weeks of vacation time that if I don't use keep accruing and it's super sweet. Add in that at 25 years on the job (I'll be 47), I get paid 55% of my salary for the rest of my life and then I just feel spoiled.

 I'm sure you work hard and also in a dangerous profession, thank you.

 But if anyone wonders why goverments are broke, just look at this.
He get's paid a high wage for working an 80% schedule, 10 paid weeks (off).
 He didn't say, but gov jobs usually have a great health insurance plan.
And then to support him with 55% of his salary for what could easily be 35 years probably
with health insurance, when he has paid nothing into it, is just legislators giving away
other peoples money, Taxpayers money.
/rant is over/
The typical sheriff or fire department retiree in our county retires after 30 years.  That's age 50-55, and their pensions are around $180-240k a year, when you add up pension + medical care.  Often these guys are retired and collecting pensions for longer than they were working.  It's nuts.  Mostly because they are underfunded, and we have to cut county and city services to pay for them.

Has to change, and pretty quickly!
This is what I was hinting at. In my city, the police force eats up one third of the city's entire annual budget. Here's the rub: they believe they are being unfairly treated because the police force should get 50% of the budget. I can't even...

Related story: my friend's husband graduated from Harvard Kennedy School. One of his classmates is the City Manager of a nearby town. Recently they had a conversation (as related by my friend), along the lines of how they'd done everything wrong. If they'd only joined the Fire or Police Department right out of high school or a couple years of junior college, they'd be retired by now and collecting nice, guaranteed pensions with full benefits. Sad, but probably true.

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 410
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #376 on: February 02, 2018, 05:20:15 AM »
To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it.  You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to.  You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like.  Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.

This!  I grew up in a poor area and spent several years working for myself in a tiny, remote ski town (=long stretches of time with no income).  We had a low to moderate income so when we rejoined the real world and had to get jobs in a bigger tourist area (small beach city) I had no idea what to expect and figured only the few make high salaries.  We started out fairly low $40k each, but I lucked into a job with a consulting company 2 years later at $75k.  Each year I got the max raise allowed and got promoted.  I'm now at $100k plus bonus and have received bonuses every single year, even years that company wide bonuses were not paid.  I saved them $2M by changing the way we do business in my small area?  You bet leadership knew about it.  I could make more if I switched jobs, but working from home is invaluable to me.  I have a degree and work in recruiting. I'm amazed at how high salaries are in recruiting in some industries, primarily pharma and consulting.

toganet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #377 on: February 02, 2018, 08:24:33 AM »
I'm returning to my main tech career path (at least for the moment) after an adventure in consulting and an attempted startup, currently making about $120k.  That's right where I was ~4 years ago when I decided I needed to make a change.

How I got there was a bit convoluted.  I have a BS in Psychology from a small liberal arts college, with a double major in Philosophy and minors in physical sciences, Theology, and Women's Studies.  (My classmates said I had a BS in BS).  I had no idea what I wanted to do when I grew up, partly due to being good at everything I had tried (paradox of choice) and also being completely ignorant about what options were out there, I think due to growing up in a poor area and never even meeting a wealthy person who wasn't a doctor or lawyer.

I started out in public policy, doing statistical analysis of prison data for the Texas criminal justice system.  This mostly involved programming, which I found I had a knack for, and so moved into the programming team.  This was in 1998, when anyone who could write HTML could get a job as a programmer.  Being able to actually code put me in demand -- but I was still working in the government, so pay was low.  Around this time I got homesick for Buffalo.  That led to jobs in tech support, network administration, and then project management.  My salary really didn't take off until then, but was still only $50k or so, until I moved into people management on the technical side of things.  That turned out to be where the real value of my skillset came in.  Like @caracarn I'm able to communicate the value of IT to the business side, and also to straddle the line between software development and IT, which is the frontier of process improvement nowadays (devops, anyone?). 

My limiting factor, though, has been an unwillingness to relocate in pursuit of more money and higher ladder rungs.  Well, at least since 2003 or so.  Part of this is due to my desire to maintain family connections, and part is due to a true affection for this region.  The time I spent in Austin and DC were fun, but served to reinforce my decision to remain here.

That being said, I'm at something of an inflection point, career-wise, and thinking about options.  Knowing that I can pull in six figures here in a reasonably LCOL (aside from NY's taxes) is comforting, but the idea that I'm leaving money on the table that would accelerate FIRE makes me think.

Tl;DR, you can get into IT with even the most liberal arts of degrees -- or none at all, and make 6 figures in a cheaper market.  It might take a while to get there, though, if you don't want to move to where the jobs are.

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #378 on: February 02, 2018, 08:35:56 AM »
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?? I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.

Other people have much higher mental capacities including their innate ability to learn. Some get it to an "average" degree, some get it to a large degree, and some (like my cousin) have very little ability to learn because of their genetics.

I challenge anyone to teach my cousin to juggle. Get back to me after you've given up....

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #379 on: February 02, 2018, 09:21:46 AM »
To tie this back in to the topic at hand, don't believe anyone here who tells you can't earn $100k/yr if you're not naturally suited to it.  You are naturally suited to any damn thing you decide to be suited to.  You get to pick what kind of person you are, and what kind of jobs you like.  Nobody in America is destined to be poor, and the idea that a person is incapable of success because of the their birthright seems pretty offensive to modern American ideals.

This!  I grew up in a poor area and spent several years working for myself in a tiny, remote ski town (=long stretches of time with no income).  We had a low to moderate income so when we rejoined the real world and had to get jobs in a bigger tourist area (small beach city) I had no idea what to expect and figured only the few make high salaries.  We started out fairly low $40k each, but I lucked into a job with a consulting company 2 years later at $75k.  Each year I got the max raise allowed and got promoted.  I'm now at $100k plus bonus and have received bonuses every single year, even years that company wide bonuses were not paid.  I saved them $2M by changing the way we do business in my small area?  You bet leadership knew about it.  I could make more if I switched jobs, but working from home is invaluable to me.  I have a degree and work in recruiting. I'm amazed at how high salaries are in recruiting in some industries, primarily pharma and consulting.

I agree.  I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career. Your willingness to work, learn, move, etc. are all that is needed.  When I hire junior people I basically tell them just by showing up you are almost guaranteed to get into the top 20% of household income (which is a bit above $100k) at some point.  Put in some work and effort, be personable and respectful then top 10% is pretty easy, be a little more political and strategic then top 5% is fairly achievable.  After that it becomes exponentially more difficult but not impossible to move up the percentages.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #380 on: February 02, 2018, 09:23:59 AM »
There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?

To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.

SC93

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 618
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #381 on: February 02, 2018, 09:26:51 AM »
I challenge anyone to teach my cousin to juggle. Get back to me after you've given up....

Leave your armless cousin out of this!!! :)

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Age: 37
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #382 on: February 02, 2018, 09:45:36 AM »
I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career.

Wait, what about people who lack the genetic makeup that codes for a six-figure-earner phenotype?

There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?

To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.

To be even fairer, jlcnuke is clearly arguing against a strawman position that neither sol nor anyone else in this thread actually adopted.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #383 on: February 02, 2018, 09:47:05 AM »
I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.

I have relatives with a variety of genetic disabilities, like extra chromosomes.  I think I've made sufficient allowances in this discussion for people like that.  Also people born paralyzed, who will find it harder to learn to dance.  I'm not talking about disabilities, I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone.  For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe. 

Remember that genetics confers physical traits.  Only.  They are the protein instruction sheet, but how your body reads and interprets and implements that sheet is not set in stone.  Your body responds to your environment, and your mind responds even more dramatically than that.  Different genes are turned on and off over the course of your life.  Some are expressed more strongly than others for reasons not contained in your DNA.  And, most importantly to my point, most of things that people tried to blame on genetics two pages ago (like computer programming ability) are not encoded in genetics at all.  They are learned skills, and there is no mechanisms for storing learned skills in your DNA.  It just doesn't work that way.

Some scientists USED to believe that, I suppose.  Before Darwin, there was a serious argument that giraffes had long necks because mommy and daddy giraffe stretched their necks over their lifetimes and then passed that stretchiness on to their children.  We now know that genetics doesn't work that way.  Your lifetime of accumulated experiences/skills/traits is not passed on to your children based on your lifestyle, it is only passed on in the genes you inherited from your own parents.  You can not make your children stronger by working out before they are born.  Trait selection is 100% based on mate selection.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 10:31:56 AM by sol »

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #384 on: February 02, 2018, 09:56:29 AM »
Quote
I agree that effort/practice will enhance learning.  Tell me you have never been in a class where there was one person that had to study for hours or days on end and there was another that basically absorbed it with little effort?

I used to be that kid!

So of course I have.  So has my 14 year old who got a D on his first honors chemistry test and then came home and told me he was dumb because his buddy John is just naturally smart and he got an A on the same test.  Then he spent two months studying chemistry every night, and now my kid has an A and John has a B+, and suddenly the idea of "talent" makes a lot more sense to my son.  Talent is earned with practice.  It is not god-given.  It is not destiny.  It is the product of your life choices and experiences.

John got an A on his first chem test because John's parents used to drill him on science last year, so he had a good foundation of prerequisite skills.  My son wasn't as far along that path yet, and now he is.  He made up the difference with effort.  He learned chemistry, and in the process learned that talent can be acquired. 

He went through the exact same process when he first joined the swim team.  Slowest kid in the pool, came home and told me he'll never be any good because there were kids two years younger than him who turned in faster times.  A year later he's put in a thousand hours at the pool and his time are dropping with every single meet, and he's no longer the slowest kid in the pool.  As it turns out, hard work pays off!  His 14-year-old mind is blown. 

He no longer blames his genetics for a bad lap time or a D on a chemistry test, and you shouldn't either.  You are not a bad computer programmer because you are dumb, you are bad because you haven't yet learned how to be as good as someone else who HAS learned it.  Don't passively accept your fate as if it cannot be changed, and don't blame your supposed bad luck for not being talented.  Do the work.  Get talented through practice.  You (and here I mean the generic you) can learn.

Again the argument is not that work/effort isn't needed.....even for gifted people.  Slower people just have to work harder, but if the genetically talented person who has a higher learning ability applies just the same effort as the slower person, then they will excel more than the other person.  So your son who had to work really hard to get the A compared to the higher learning student who got a B doing nothing - it stands to reason that the B student with effort would easily get an A and more likely would be in an honors or accelerated class so your son wouldn't even have the comparison.   In some regard, the smarter students underperformance created drive in your son. 

I really need to exit this as I am worried you will start trying to convince me the world is flat.

tooqk4u22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #385 on: February 02, 2018, 10:08:21 AM »
....I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone.  For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe. 

Focus on this....if you compare average people with average people then yes the genetic predisposition doesn't come into play.   So you are saying a person with an IQ of 90-110 who works hard will out perform a person with an IQ of 90-110 who doesn't.....got it, we agree then.   Then there is the above average and gifted people - but still same concept, a person with an above average IQ of 150 who works hard will outperform a person with an above average IQ of 150 who doesn't work hard. We should be able to agree on that too.

So the disagreement is that given same effort and circumstance you don't believe a person of average IQ 90-110 will under perform a person with an IQ of 150......and sir is preposterous.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #386 on: February 02, 2018, 10:18:00 AM »
Slower people just have to work harder, but if the genetically talented person who has a higher learning ability applies just the same effort as the slower person, then they will excel more than the other person. 

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll just highlight that these two kids are not, themselves, smart or dumb or slow or fast.  These are not attributes of their identity, these are descriptor of how well they have learned a specific skill set.  Racists tend to believe that success and failure are god-given destinies that define who you are, rather than something you earn.

How much effort you have to put in order to get an A in chemistry is very much like how much effort you have to put in to run a 12k race.  If you are grossly out of shape, the race will be hard for you.  This does not mean you "can't" do it as an integral and unchangeable feature of your character, it means you haven't been training for the past year to get in shape for it.  If you had been training, you could run it.  Every biologically normal healthy person can run a 12k.  Some of them just need years and years of training to lose 300 pounds first, and some of them could do it today because they've already put in years of training.

And just like with the 12k being good prep for a marathon, a kid who has been training on high school chemistry knowledge will be a in a better position to then train on a topic like mineralogy, which is heavily based on chemistry.  If he learns mineralogy easily, it is not because he is gifted but because he has put in the time to get himself to the place where he is adequately prepared to take the next step.  If he doesn't learn it easily, it is not because his genes have held him back.  It is because his experiences held him back. 

The same argument applies all the way down to babies.  You don't learn chemistry without knowing how to read, you don't learn reading without letters, you don't learn letters without singing the alphabet song, you don't learn to sing without playing with your parents and friends.  At each step, there is a required skill that must be mastered first.  This is the fundamental underpinning of all modern educational research.  We learn best when we are best prepared for it.  Preparation comes from other learning. 

So when you talk about "higher learning ability" what I see is "better foundational preparation" and what a racist see is "superior white genes".  Which are you?

Blaming genetics for differences in learning ability is to support the antiquated notion that some classes of people deserve their poverty because they are born inferior, instead of recognizing that their poverty is the result of systemic discrepancies in opportunity and experiences.  Kids from Detroit, as a class, don't get lower test scores than kids from Seattle because of their genes.  They get lower test scores because they have not been afforded the same chances that kids from Seattle have.  If you could covertly swap every kid in Seattle with a kid in Detroit on the day of their birth, the outcomes in each city would not change much. 

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #387 on: February 02, 2018, 10:19:14 AM »
I'll go let my cousin know that.. unfortunately, he won't understand what I'm saying because genetics cursed him with a brain unable to learn or progress past about a 1st grade level.

I have relatives with a variety of genetic disabilities, like extra chromosomes.  I think I've made sufficient allowances in this discussion for people like that.  Also people born paralyzed, who will find it harder to learn to dance.  I'm not talking about disabilities, I'm talking about the abilities of average people being vastly underestimated by virtually everyone.  For those folks, their genetics just aren't nearly as important as most people believe. 

Remember that genetics confers physical traits.  Only.  They are the protein instruction sheet, but how your body reads and interprets and implements that sheet is not set in stone.  Your body responds to your environment, and your mind responds even more dramatically than that.  Different genes are turned on and off over the course of your life.  Some are expressed more strongly than others for reasons not contained in your DNA.  And, most importantly to my point, most of things that people tried to blame on genetics two pages ago (like computer programming ability) are not encoded in genetics at all.  They are learned skills, and there is no mechanisms for storing learned skills in your DNA.  It just doesn't work that way.

Some scientists USED to believe that, I suppose.  Before Darwin, there was a serious argument that giraffes had long necks because mommy and daddy giraffe stretched their necks over their lifetimes and then passed that stretchiness on to their children.  We now know that genetics doesn't work that way.  Your lifetime of accumulated experiences/skills/traits is not passed on to your children based on your lifestyle, it is only passed on in the genes you inherited from your own parents.  You can not make your children stronger by working out before they are born.  Trait selection is 100% based on mate selection.

To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.

Based on our previous discussions, it does not surprise me to learn that Mississippi Mudstache believes that a person's DNA determines their destiny.  We have a long history of me being publicly appalled by MM's blatant racism.  I will wear those insults as a point of pride, considering the source.  I also enjoy using science to make the KKK angry, on occasion.

There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory" iirc, and those scientist's work (such as Dr. Darold Treffert, Dr. Steven Pinker, Brian Butterworth, Nobel Prize winner Marshall Nivenberg, etc) directly refutes your assertion to the contrary. Now, if your credentials in the study of human genetics and learning exceed those of people with accolades such as a multiple PHd's in associated fields, actually being a professor of cognitive neuropsychology and related fields, a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, etc....please let me know so I can consider your opinion just as valid as those of people who have such accolades.

I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Age: 32
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #388 on: February 02, 2018, 10:21:31 AM »
my experience as a trainer/supervisor provides a good lab setting to watch different people try tasks that are completely new and I would say there are absolutely brain differences within normal brains.

NO TASK is completely new.  Everything you've ever done is based on something you've done or seen before, or you wouldn't know how to try it.

I've taught over a hundred different people how to juggle.  Some of them learned quick, some of them learned slow, but everyone with two working arms can learn.  How quickly you learn is based on how comfortable you are with balls, which generally means kids who played a ballsport in school learn quick and kids who didn't learn slow.  Baseball players learn faster than lacrosse players, who learn faster than kids from the band, who learn faster than kids who only watch cartoons.  There is always a foundation of required skills that you have to master before you can move on to something new.

This is how pedagogy works.  If you have a student who doesn't understand math facts, they are going to struggle with algebra.  If he can't do algebra, he won't get trig.  Without trig he'll fail calculus.  But if you find a kid who is failing calculus, that doesn't mean he was born genetically incapable of doing calculus.  It means his teachers failed to give him the required building blocks to help him along the required path.  You can just give him an F and say he's dumb, but a better answer is to find out where his deficiencies are and address those first, then later you can come back to calculus if necessary.

The same process is true for anything you learn, including being an NFL quarterback.  The fact that some people get there faster is entirely due to their particular developmental pathway.  They got the fundamentals down right the first time, early, with lots of reps and professional guidance, and that allowed them to move on to footwork and reads and play calling.  No baby is ever born knowing how to call plays.  Everyone learns.  Because there is no protein that codes for play calling ability, there is no genetic component to play calling ability.  If you are a "talented" play caller who makes it look easy, it is only because you are incredibly skilled.  Not because of your DNA.  Talent is earned, not born.
I'm saying we have finite resources in the workplace and while, yes everyone could get good at certain things (to make that 100k!!!) after varying amounts of time, the time for some to get to that point is incredibly inefficient whereas for others they are worth the investment.  I think this is partially based on our brains.  Some just have higher ceilings/floors than others with all the practice/experience in the world.

If you disagree and think that's wrong - I applaud your optimism and patience if you work with low-performing workers and am potentially jealous of your much higher workplace budget.

Curious - do you feel memory capacity is 100% trainable for all "normal" humans or is there variation?  That is, do you think all normal humans could be trained to have the same memory capacity.  If so, do you think it would take each human an equal amount of time to get there?

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Age: 32
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #389 on: February 02, 2018, 10:30:16 AM »
The same argument applies all the way down to babies.  You don't learn chemistry without knowing how to read, you don't learn reading without letters, you don't learn letters without singing the alphabet song, you don't learn to sing without playing with your parents and friends.  At each step, there is a required skill that must be mastered first.  This is the fundamental underpinning of all modern educational research.  We learn best when we are best prepared for it.  Preparation comes from other learning. 
Ok that's great but how do you explain children who were treated as similarly as could be by their parents but once they get just beyond the "being read to stage and learning to read on their own", one child becomes a voracious reader and devours everything in the house and a good chunk of the local library while the other child doesn't mind reading but would much rather be shooting a basketball or playing with toys.  Is that really 100% attributable to experience?  The experiences were nearly the same. 

Yes, the motivated reader's experiences are now different from their toy-preferring sibling and their trajectories may very well be different but how is that possible if they started from the same place and their brains are the same?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #390 on: February 02, 2018, 10:43:29 AM »
So the disagreement is that given same effort and circumstance you don't believe a person of average IQ 90-110 will under perform a person with an IQ of 150......and sir is preposterous.

I think you're putting WAAAAY too much credence in IQ tests.  You think that number means anything other than how many right answers you got on a test?

Tests can be studied.  The relevant material can be learned.  I didn't score top 0.5% on the SAT because I'm smarter than 99.5% of the population, I scored well because I studied the test and learned how to beat it.  It's a skill like any other.

IQ is not a measurement like height and weight.  It is not a discrete quantity that can be measured.  It's a skill like your time in the mile run, and it can be trained like any other skill.  How efficiently you train it, just like the run, is based on how well you have previously trained the required base skills.

I have obviously made allowances here for physical defects.  If you are born with a malformed heart or a missing limb, your mile run time can still be trained but will top out much sooner.  Your brain is much more adaptably flexible than is your body, though, and it can compensate for all kinds of wild deficiencies.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #391 on: February 02, 2018, 10:51:23 AM »
I think its downright hard not to be able to make $100k at some point throughout your career.

Wait, what about people who lack the genetic makeup that codes for a six-figure-earner phenotype?

There are actually people here that think genetics don't impact a person's ability to learn?

To be fair, I'm not 100% convinced that sol isn't just a sentient right-wing caricature of a leftist.

To be even fairer, jlcnuke is clearly arguing against a strawman position that neither sol nor anyone else in this thread actually adopted.

Yes, his argument (which was, in sum: I have a cousin with an intellectual disability, therefore innate intelligence cannot be equal among all people) is a bit of a strawman. But just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist. I am sympathetic to sol's argument, but it sounds more like faith-based wishful thinking when compared against the scientific literature.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #392 on: February 02, 2018, 10:52:30 AM »
There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory"

You have grossly misrepresented this research.

Your genetic memory does not include C++ computer programming.  It includes things like breathing and suckling, and even then the "memory" isn't actually a chemical storage web in your brain the way a normal memory is, but rather the most obvious and efficient use of structural features that are encoded by your DNA.  We all have genetic memory for walking on our feet instead of our hands, for example, and a person raised without any human contact would "remember" to walk on their feet without anyone teaching them.  This does NOT make it akin to a learned skill like juggling or chemistry tests, and it's ludicrous that you would suggest otherwise.

Quote
I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.

Lots of people agree with you!  Like antebellum American slave owners!  And Nazis!

jlcnuke

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #393 on: February 02, 2018, 10:54:16 AM »
There is scientific evidence that genetics do store knowledge/skills in some species (including humans) and generally referred to as "genetic memory"

You have grossly misrepresented this research.

Your genetic memory does not include C++ computer programming.  It includes things like breathing and suckling, and even then the "memory" isn't actually a chemical storage web in your brain the way a normal memory is, but rather the most obvious and efficient use of structural features that are encoded by your DNA.  We all have genetic memory for walking on our feet instead of our hands, for example, and a person raised without any human contact would "remember" to walk on their feet without anyone teaching them.  This does NOT make it akin to a learned skill like juggling or chemistry tests, and it's ludicrous that you would suggest otherwise.

Quote
I am, additionally, saying that the innate learning capacity of one person can be such that they never are able to learn "XYZ" concept, regardless of their environment/conditioning/etc. simply because their mind doesn't have the capacity to understand it.

Lots of people agree with you!  Like antebellum American slave owners!  And Nazis!
Congratulations on going there... Lol

I'm not surprised you haven't read the research though... Maybe some day you'll know what your talking about (I won't hold me breath waiting).

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk


Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #394 on: February 02, 2018, 10:57:15 AM »
I used to work with a bunch of scientists. Very few were 'normal'. By that I mean, they were so smart that stuff like common sense flew out the window. Some were very quirky or their personalities were off. They could do a very involved experiment and rattle off theories but doing something simple like tying their shoes was just not on their radar screen. I always said to be that smart something has to give. I did happen to meet one genius scientist that was perfectly normal, played all kinds of sports and was very athletic. He was an exception to the rule of no common sense. Unfortunately he was killed in a tragic accident much too young.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #395 on: February 02, 2018, 11:01:19 AM »
the time for some to get to that point is incredibly inefficient whereas for others they are worth the investment. 

This part I agree with.  There are real differences in the real world.  If a person isn't taught how to read until they are 80, they are unlikely to ever win a Pulitzer Prize.  Mastering skills at the appropriate stage of development is absolutely essential to continued future growth.  In a business environment, this often means cutting loose the people who don't bring the required skills with them. 

I'm just saying that this lack of skills is not the fault of their genetics, but of their environment.  Nobody is born knowing how to read.  We all have to learn.  Reading is 100% a "nurture" skill instead of a "nature" skill.  Almost everything is, but the American public is still dreamily in love with the notion of "inherent abilities" they get from widely discredit "research" by admitted racists in the early 20th century.  Here in the real world, we've made huge strides in understanding genetic expression in the past 20 years and it has basically upended all of our previous understanding about genetic control of your abilities.

Quote
Curious - do you feel memory capacity is 100% trainable for all "normal" humans or is there variation?  That is, do you think all normal humans could be trained to have the same memory capacity.  If so, do you think it would take each human an equal amount of time to get there?

If you started at conception with genetically normal zygotes, and tested them before medically-related declines later in life?  Almost certainly.  The human mind is incredibly flexible and responsive to the way it is used and trained.  The fact that some people get shitty training does not mean their memory (or their station in society) was fixed for them, no matter what they do.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #396 on: February 02, 2018, 11:11:28 AM »
just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist.

Oooh, so close.  I have been patiently waiting for someone to mention Charles Murray's 1994 book "The Bell Curve" which explicitly makes the argument that many people here are making: that racism and deliberately enforced inequality are justified features of our society because genes determine destiny. 

Go ahead and google it if you're not familiar.  The whole brouhaha is strangely reminiscent of Donald Trump's rhetoric, and more relevant today than ever.  For example, Murray absolutely loves the idea of restricting immigration from shithole countries, because he thinks those people are genetically inferior and will only drag America down into the gutter if they are allowed to interbreed their inferior genes with our superior American ones.

The book has been widely discredited from multiple angles, of course, so I'm kind of surprised to see the same arguments repeated here.  He used a similar approach, which basically boils down to "look at the data, blacks are clearly inferior" without making any attempt to ascertain WHY test scores are lower in any given subpopulation.  He, like many of you, assumes it is genetic and not environmental or sociological factors that limit the success of minorities.

More to your point, I'm not arguing that there is no distribution of abilities.  I'm arguing that most people incorrectly attribute this distribution to genetics instead of training.  The Olympic gymnast example above is perhaps illustrative:  how good of a gymnast you are is basically 100% determined by how much gymnastics training you have.  A person with the perfect genetic makeup and no training has NO talent for gymnastics.  The "talent" portion, which is what started this tangent, is entirely learned.  Not inherited.  Not genetic.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2018, 11:17:35 AM by sol »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #397 on: February 02, 2018, 11:25:39 AM »
I used to work with a bunch of scientists. Very few were 'normal'.

I have also known a bunch of these folks.  I thought I was basically the smartest person I had ever met, until I got to college and met people who obviously put me to shame. 

But their quirkiness supports my point, I think.  If you're the kind of kid who spent his entire high school career reading applied math textbooks and then wrote a rap song about Green's theorem and branch cuts, you probably didn't make a lot of room for learning about how to comb your hair or ask a cute girl to prom.  You applied yourself to a different subset of topics.  Your experiences and training determined your "talent" for applied math, and your lack of talent saxaphone and poetry.  Because talent is earned with practice.  You aren't born knowing Green's theorem any more than you're born knowing how to ask a girl to prom.  These things are learned skills, not encoded in your DNA. 

And because they are learned skills, and not encoded in your DNA, they can be trained and developed over time just like any other talent.  If you already know how to ask someone out, you can still learn applied math.  You have not been doomed to never understand math just because you haven't learned it yet.  Your genes are not handicapping you from learning more math. 

My only request is that we stop trying blame our genetics for our own failures.  Your genes are way less important than you think.

brooklynguy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Age: 37
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #398 on: February 02, 2018, 11:33:49 AM »
But just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist. I am sympathetic to sol's argument, but it sounds more like faith-based wishful thinking when compared against the scientific literature.

When it comes to innate intelligence (defined as "the inherent capacity to learn or understand"), the very notion that there is a spectrum among unimpaired human brains is a dangerous claim requiring extraordinary evidence, which, to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, does not exist (though sol's knowledge in this area is obviously much stronger, and he appears to agree).  Does the weight of the evidence contradict the claim that every unimpaired human brain is a computer capable of understanding anything and everything?

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: How do people make $100+ salary?
« Reply #399 on: February 02, 2018, 11:48:41 AM »
just because he used an example on the tail end of the bell curve does not mean that the bell curve does not exist.

Oooh, so close.  I have been patiently waiting for someone to mention Charles Murray's 1994 book "The Bell Curve" which explicitly makes the argument that many people here are making: that racism and deliberately enforced inequality are justified features of our society because genes determine destiny. 

Oh for fuck's sake. I did not "mention" his book. I have not read it, but I am aware of it and also of its failings. Nobody here is making the point that you claim they are making. Please do not confuse my use of a scientific term with a widely discredited, pseudoscientific book. Your eagerness to associate anyone who disagrees with you with racists and Nazis is not helping your case.

Sol, you argue as though you believe that anyone who dares to question your dogma is destined to follow down the path of racism and eugenics. Is it okay for me to believe - not just to say it, but to truly fucking believe - that all people are created equal in worth, even if not in ability? I think we're done here, because I don't care for any more of my words to be processed through your little Nazi-shaped Play-Doh mold.