I’m unsure how my son and I became the picture of poverty for this film. I am an educator with a masters degree who has completed half the coursework towards a doctoral degree. His dad, my husband, is an IT professional. We are not under-educated or experiencing poverty. We were told they wanted us to be featured in this short film to talk about the early childhood communication program I signed up for this past summer. The program participants were mostly well-educated, middle class families. This video is deceptive and misleading! (That’s me with my toddler featured throughout the video, but it has been edited in a way that skews the information to fit the producers’ agenda).
I’m sorry that you feel so. Poor children get to spent less time with their parents who have to work 2 jobs. They just used you as portrayal of the poor.
I think the film producer has the mindset that black people are typically poorer, that is why they used your image to represent the poor and less well educated group. I think these days most documentaries are not just filmed as is but edited to suit the producers’ needs.
Especially the education of young girls and women. It has been shown that it can have a signifficant effect on the quality of life of families and the future of children.
I see what you’re saying. To me, the larger point here is not so much genetics, but more how important education through speaking with their parents at home is for brain development.
@@sternamc919sterna3 and on the economy as a whole! No wonder. After all, it’s hard for your economy to thrive if you don’t educate half the population!
@@XOPOIIIO according to the video children's exposure to quantity and quality of words have cognitive implications, instead of fulfilling the quota of minimum words by tracking how much their parents speak to them you can alternatively relive the parents of doing part-time jobs by providing economic equality so they can spend their quality time with their children.
Unless someone is able to explain how genes influence college graduation rate at the molecular level, I personally don't recommend founding a educational system basically on a correlation...
"Unless someone is able to explain how CO2 emissions influence climate at a molecular level, I personally don't recommend lowering our emissions" Can you identify the logical fallacy?
I see what you’re saying, but these studies are looking at population scale effects of genes. The problem with insisting on a molecular explanation is that genes function as parts of complex networks. The details of how the molecular genetics translates to a person’s educational achievement occurs through an interplay of genes and environments. Particular variants of genes influence the brain to develop within its environment in particular ways. That interplay emerges as a person’s intellectual intelligence, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence, all of which influence their educational achievement.
@@elchuchulo that doesn't really make sense or at least is a badly chosen example because the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are pretty clear and can be described on a molecular level
About the genetics part, it's never enough to remember: "Correlation is different to causation", furthermore, some genetic traits have some social impact that may cause the result mentioned
I mean their method just completely disregards all neurodivergent children, that includes those with autism to dyslexia to sensory processing, they all have external factors that affect those children more so in their academic achievements, than typically developing children. Also the fact that a large majority of people in poverty tend to be neurodivergent too is a huge impactful factor they should REALLY take into account.
As with all innovations and data it can be a blessing and a curse. As a teacher I assume that all students have an innate intelligence of some variety and our job as parents and teachers is to cultivate that intelligence while strengthening their weaknesses. Having worked with gifted children I have observed children who are both delayed in some areas and advanced in others. I believe that using a genetic lens may likely serve to classify "academic achievement" while over looking many other adaptive traits which are needed to adapt to our changing environment. Academic achievement is much to narrow a focus to account for the traits needed to succeed as our planet changes. Thank you and please consider these observations accumulated over 50 years of teaching. Be well.
I have heard that a predisposition to alcoholism is in the genes. This predisposition could be inherited, even if neither of your parents actually became alcoholic. It seems it would be helpful if caregivers and guidance counselors could tailor their interventions with those with such a predisposition. But there are ethical and privacy concerns here as well. And it would be valuable to understand the interaction of genetic and social factors, not just in how people fall into alcoholoism, but also in the effectiveness of various intervention options in their getting out of it.
I certainly think genetics can be controversial. However, everyone should remember the complexity of genetics. There’s epigenetics -the influence of the environment on gene expression/supression- and the intricate relationship there’s between multiple genes and certain traits. Also, in the case of obesity at least, after three generations it becomes also a genetical problem. I believe it just might be useful for tackling inequality. However, we should always bear in mind all these things and not (over)naturalizing inequality.
Genetics is especially controversial in the context of race/ethnicity for obvious reasons. I don't think the suggestion that intelligence is determined by genes in itself is that controversial, as long as it isn't accompanied by the notion of statistically significant differences between races.
Poverty can be reduced through policy, and educational opportunities can be improved. However, genetics confers a broad range of inequalities, and innate predispositions cannot be boosted.
Which is why the folks who don't want to spend money on social policy or public education tend to also support such deterministic theories. If you can dismiss all social inequality as the "fault in our genes", then there's no expectation that the 99% should share in the fruits of their labor.
@@mandisaw You are arguing against something that I did NOT write --- that I did not even imply. Go back to school to learn reading comprehension and logic. Those, like you, who resort to conjured-up universals, strawman arguments, and red herrings typically fail to convince educated others.
@@compassroses I added to your comment with a broader political/social context - the why, not merely the what. Your faulty assumption that I was (1) arguing against your point, and (2) lumping you in with those in favor of genetic-determinism, speaks more to your own failure to comprehend. Or perhaps you actually do reflect the position I mentioned, and were just jumping ahead with a pre-emptive stock rebuttal?
It's huge problem for developing country... In Indonesia, where student mostly live in village have obstacle to access formal school... Someday, they should swim on river because no bridge, and other cases... Affordability to internet access... Maybe I have to create research on Digital Poverty to respond huge problems 😁
@@senseofmindshow Part of our human arrogance that thinks science can do best. Kids need an intact, biological family, with biological mom and biological dad in monogamous marriage with generational support from grandparents and rooted community with other relatives and neighbors
These people completely miss the point, basing education on genetics leads to job market signals that would be based on genetics. For instance, if a company were to choose between two candidates one on the special genetic accommodation of the school and the other on the standard curriculum, who do you think the company would hire?
Too much focus on academic achievement and little training on basic life skills, how to plan and manage projects, how to solve problems, knowledge on the rights and duties as a human in society and in nature, voluntary work. From my experience, most young people have IT skills but are very detached from normal life in society, in interaction with people from different age groups and origins. They tend to believe everything that is presented to them in social media without critical thinking.
@@sternamc919sterna3 agree! I wish I had been taught how to do my taxes, how to invest, how to prepare for a job interview, etc in high school. It seems ridiculous that we don’t do that.
@@senseofmindshow how to plan meals for the month and avoid waste 😉. Many "progressive" educators consider these as worthless skills and jobs. But no one is born with full knowledge, we have to learn all that and the best time to do it is when we are young, though we should keep learning new skills through life.
It’s great that biotech is being funded but no matter what science and tech is done and provided, I believe that taxing the rich, reallocating taxes, and cancelling student debt, along with making community college free and other systematic changes are important pieces of the puzzle.
I find the use of “graduating from college” and “receiving a PhD” as benchmarks for academic success highly problematic. These terms are thrown out as a given when in fact we need to create additional paths for life success including trade and vocational study.
More to the point, college graduation and graduate study are both far more influenced by socioeconomic factors than genetic ones. Her study would just identify the shared genetics of rich people. We've already been down this road before, and it never ends well.
It seems odd to highlight the racist aspect on eugenics, when the classist aspect was just as, if not more, prominent and is more relevant to the discussion. That being said, I think burying our heads in the sand about genetic determinants of important socio-economic outcomes is both harmful and annoying. It's completely valid to say we shouldn't base social policy off genetics because it justifies inequality. What _isn't_ valid is to refuse to seriously acknowledge that strong genetic predeterminants may exist, just because people disagree with the spectre of eugenics. There is a lot of motivated reasoning - people who don't like the sociological implications of genetics, and so insist it isn't a factor, despite the fact that relatively little research has been done and what has been done, as well as intuitive sense, supports a link.
You’re completely right. There’s an amazing display of mental gymnastics with people who want to pretend that the influence of genes is only from the neck down.
The education gap between rich and poor kids are everywhere not just about how much time their parents can be with them and teach them. But it's a great start
To me, it's natural to say Kids from Poor background, face such circumstances Rich or Middle class kids never do. They think more times than an average kid to be positive about something as they surely feel insecure and scared.
Most part of this video making fool to peoples. Because major cause didn't raise in this video that responsible for poverty such as. What about the long discrimination on a certain community over a long time, govt and society policies that promote crony capitalism from ancient times that's not major factors.
This video was so disappointing. You put a scientist who is saying that 'genetics' can tell you who is most likely to go to college .... ignoring all the cultural and socioeconomic contributions to that outcome. Ignoring wealth, poverty, nutrition, language spoken at home, etc. Making any decision based solely on 'genes' - for something that is affected by so many variables - is outright irresponsible. Then it completely glosses over our problematic history of using 'genetics' to guide our decisions regarding people... and they gave NO context with these vague mentions to explain exactly what the issue was..... and all the past atrocities that humans used 'science' to justify. This was a horribly edited, horribly written, deceitful pseudo-essay which not-so-subtlety advocates for Eugenics. I am actually subscribed to the Economist. If I continue to see videos like this, I will definitely unsubscribe.
Socioeconomic status is not as important as having conversations with a child for developing their mental and neurological capacities. That is incredibly powerful. I must say, I think Harden is right to say that genetics influence which kids benefit most from this, so there is still going to be individual variation and I can imagine that some kids will just be unlucky in this regard. However, if this idea holds up, it will completely change how we look at educational achievement. My guess is that socioeconomic status and adversity in genera will still matter, but we will see how incredibly powerful it is to engage in the most natural form of human education: conversation.
Shouldn't scientists figure out planned obsolescence in consumer products and address the illogic of land ownership? The land is millions of years old, why should some people pay others 5live on it?
Changing the name of the video would not change the fact that it's a boring video because you pulled it thin. The first few minute would have been enough
Keep the poor poor. Poor don’t need to earn ant more than they are paid. Making money is a skill. Social-wellfare is a socialist progressive idea to create an “ideal world” for all to live well. But from a rich persons perspective, why should the poor earn more? They will probably just consume more, ultimately funding the rich capitalist ventures.
Nonsense scientism, completely misses the point. Improve outcomes for poor children by reducing family poverty with economic policy, not with word-recording gadgets or genetic profiling. Put your essentialism away for just a minute, please. It's about political choices. PS see Shadarra James' comment (she's in the video).
The rich all need to become volunteers, such that they actively participate in the lives of the poor. Rich families can pair up with poor families, and commit to helping the poor family in all ways. Until this happens, the rich will throw money at the problem, and never feel connected to those in need. Why volunteer to help someone less privileged than yourself, if the meaning of life is consumption and education, to achieve more consumption. This needs to happen across society, and maybe become compulsory, the way that academic achievements are compulsory for admission to a fancy college. The superiority complex of the rich and successful will subside, to be replaced by empathy and empowerment for all involved. Freedom to be selfish is not a virtue.
its ok as far as the science is concerned, but digging so deep into understanding this phenomena certain other problems can arise, which would be quite difficult to manage in the longer term. such kind of an effort can take another shape of racial discrimination. therefore the scientists should be very careful. one other point, instead investing so much on such minor issues, organizations should invest that how can we reduce injustice and social inequality in the global society. how can we create equality in the distribution of wealth???????
People not interacting with their older relatives cannot see that life conditions have improved greatly in the last 100 years, and are improving, slowly for some people because of political and financial instability and war in many countries. You have never had in human history so many people in school and higher education, capable of reading and writing and with access to technology and healthcare. Hope that it will get better for future generations.
It is strange to talk about "breaking the class ceiling" as though class is something totally determined by how well educated someone is. The Economist really should know better. Class divisions are inherent to the way our capitalist economy functions. If everyone was well educated, their would still exist a need for wage workers, people with few assets would still be compelled to work for wages, and people with large assets would still make their wealth exponentially through the exploitation of wage workers. Education is only a solution at the individual level. It can not address the structural forces in society which cast some into the working class and others into the ruling class. I'm sure the very intelligent people at the Economist recognize this.
One thing all rich and poor people have in common is they end up as dead consciousness therefore the point of existing is just to exist, last time I remember a clock never changes it always repeats and I bet my existence that the Universe is an infinite reproduction of itself and since I am the conscious present Universe then I always have and always will write this same exact present comment, forever repeats forever because 100% repeats 100%.
Let's make earth a better place, with the alternative system to monetary economy, which is named Resource Based Economy RBE! Please learn more about RBE. Thank you ❤️🗺️🖖🐇
Why do more Americans from Asian and African parentage graduate from university than their American born counterparts? This demographic is a disadvantaged group compared Caucasian Americans but they appear to do better than their black American counterparts. Thus can’t be down to genetics, it’s probably socio economic and socio cultural conditioning.
And subject everyone to the failing public school system in the US? Best everyone be dumb instead of letting some the best education possible. right? Yes, its unequal. But whenever someone brings up vouchers to fix that it gets shot down by vested interests so ...
@@akashgarg9776 the US has many private institutions. Once there is a level playing field those in power and money will do their best to fix the system because now its their kids education that is at stake.
You're assuming that the system and not the students themselves are the cause. Finnish students would do well under any system, while some students will fail regardless of the system used.
@@S2Tubes give them all a level playing field then from which to launch their careers. Don't cut off some children's legs just because they come from poor areas or families.
@@Dimitris_Half they don't need the money, they need someone to care. If they banned them tomorrow you can bet their will be thousands of stressed professionals parents chasing after their local polititions to fix the local school. Private schools segregate children based upon wealth. That can't be healthy for society. The US spends most on healthcare but has among the worst outcomes of any developed nation. Throwing money at a problem is not a fix all. You say give them more money but some rich don't want to pay the taxes. Private education is an industry, not a service to society and its also a sink for money laundering in a few cases.
I mean sure IQ is linked to genetics but I don't think it linked to your ability to make money. Of course people with really low IQ unable to make any money but after that it's fair game.
Maybe poor families don’t emphasize showing respect to teachers, behaving well, having discipline to study and put a full priority on a child’s education.
Hard to tell, when the schools in poor districts are crumbling, have huge class sizes, and lack enrichment and extracurricular activities. Since the US ties school quality to property taxes, your access to education and adult earnings is dictated far more by the median household income in your zip code/county than your genetic cocktail.
Look, if you think certain race is better at "sports" than others and that is not racist, you need to admit some races are better at mental "sports" than others.
Kids and poverty is a big topic but it starts with fact WHY are you having kids if you can't take care of them and you are poor. It's just simply nonsense. The personal selfishness to have a child even if you are poor has to stop.
My daughter has friends living in two parents households. One of the girls quit school and the other is failing most of her classes. Both girls have stay at mom's with a working dad. It appears the common denominator is genetic. The mom's of both girls are unambitious and happy being a stay at home mom. They are following in the footsteps of their parents, even though they have access to a higher education. What more should tax payers be on the hook to pay for people who just don't give a dayum?
Dont make this a problem in biology! This is economic and social problem! I can't watch this terrible video knowing the shady side of education. If those rich kids actually read and were checked fairly they wouldnt be different!
That technology won't help kids in poor class be the same level as those at the rich level due to the fact that the rich use time wisely and are action oriented than majority of society
Interesting, if you look at alot of famous British and to an extent European scientists, alot of them where the children of nobles and the children of people considered higher up in society.
I may disagree here, when you say a lot do you mean the majority? Which time are we actually talking about? 18th-19th century or turn of the century? Just interested what you actually mean.
@@SarcasticDespot but wouldn’t you say that this is only true when it comes to childhood education? After you’ve graduated isn’t it true that you are responsible for yourself? What I am referring to is that for a very low fee for example you get access to Harvard medical library. So what I am saying is, that though you may not be able to study medicine BUT you can always educate yourself.
@@tinakoernermashood6422 I'd say that's quite naive (no offence). You might feasibly have access i.e. there is no one that will deny you access. But that is not the same as it being accessible to people. Wealthy kids dont need to go out of their way to search for education, poor ones do. That is what inequality is. You might have the opportunity to roll the dice, but if the other person just gets more dice rolls. You will probably lose the game. And the worst thing about it is people will use the example of people getting lucky and beating the system to keep the unlucky ones in the system. Also even if someone is educates themselves, if there's a paywall in front of every job (degrees, certifications etc...). Social mobility will not be very high
It's amazing that you want to track what parents say to children, however you haven't gone after what they hear in rap music and movies....!!!! Get your act together Economist...!!!!!
The natural inherent attitudes is what has to be over come,when the first Europeans went to Africa, they had STONE implements and basic huts,WE had METAL for centuries, HOW can you overcome their natural attitudes.
Personally I find this video could have used a linguist instead of a psychologist. If more that half of the video was about language acquisition. A linguist would be better suited than a psychologist for this particular topic. Plus, you are playing with fire since the language acquisition debate over how children acquire language was already won. It was between B.F. Skinner (psychologist) and Noan Chomsky (linguist). Most psychologist and linguist know Chomsky language theory is correct and this video is biased. Since it portrays it as if psychologist can explain everything away because of the use of behaviourist mentality. Not all language acquisition is based solely on behaviourism. An additional criticism is about language acquisition, children learn most of there lexicon (vocabulary) at a very early age infant to early elementary school. Once a child reaches middle school there ability to fast map is reduced as age increases. A solution to improve the video is to provide more information on linguistics accounts of language and not the other way around. Behaviourism and genetics is a interesting solution but I think a broader approach would be to include two approaches from two very different disciplines. Linguistics I feel would prefer to state the issue as not number of words heard since children already have a build in language learning module (Chomsky). Evidence being children from foreign parents who speak zero of the language are still able to acquire the language, depending on age. How I see, it is societal and more to due with a philosophical debate on lifestyle, beliefs, custom, knowledge, and Etc. Poor individuals tend to be less in-depth with the ruling classes particularities. As apposition to richer individuals who have spent their entire lives plus upbringing on culturing of social knowledge. Therefore, it is not a linguist solution, nor a psychologist solution, but a societal issue that revolves around social hierarchies.
I’m unsure how my son and I became the picture of poverty for this film. I am an educator with a masters degree who has completed half the coursework towards a doctoral degree. His dad, my husband, is an IT professional. We are not under-educated or experiencing poverty.
We were told they wanted us to be featured in this short film to talk about the early childhood communication program I signed up for this past summer. The program participants were mostly well-educated, middle class families. This video is deceptive and misleading! (That’s me with my toddler featured throughout the video, but it has been edited in a way that skews the information to fit the producers’ agenda).
That's unfortunate! But thank you for putting more context as a participant in the study.
I’m sorry that you feel so.
Poor children get to spent less time with their parents who have to work 2 jobs.
They just used you as portrayal of the poor.
That's really problematic. It sounds like the producer had a narrative they wanted to push...
I think the narrative of the film maker is obvious. It is ethnic-based. That's very unfortunate.
I think the film producer has the mindset that black people are typically poorer, that is why they used your image to represent the poor and less well educated group. I think these days most documentaries are not just filmed as is but edited to suit the producers’ needs.
Instead of focusing on genetic tracking they should adress economic inequality and access to universal health and education.
Economy is liked to IQ, IQ is linked to genetics. What is unclear in that chain?
Especially the education of young girls and women. It has been shown that it can have a signifficant effect on the quality of life of families and the future of children.
I see what you’re saying. To me, the larger point here is not so much genetics, but more how important education through speaking with their parents at home is for brain development.
@@sternamc919sterna3 and on the economy as a whole! No wonder. After all, it’s hard for your economy to thrive if you don’t educate half the population!
@@XOPOIIIO according to the video children's exposure to quantity and quality of words have cognitive implications, instead of fulfilling the quota of minimum words by tracking how much their parents speak to them you can alternatively relive the parents of doing part-time jobs by providing economic equality so they can spend their quality time with their children.
Unless someone is able to explain how genes influence college graduation rate at the molecular level, I personally don't recommend founding a educational system basically on a correlation...
"Unless someone is able to explain how CO2 emissions influence climate at a molecular level, I personally don't recommend lowering our emissions"
Can you identify the logical fallacy?
I see what you’re saying, but these studies are looking at population scale effects of genes. The problem with insisting on a molecular explanation is that genes function as parts of complex networks. The details of how the molecular genetics translates to a person’s educational achievement occurs through an interplay of genes and environments. Particular variants of genes influence the brain to develop within its environment in particular ways. That interplay emerges as a person’s intellectual intelligence, social intelligence, and emotional intelligence, all of which influence their educational achievement.
@@elchuchulo that doesn't really make sense or at least is a badly chosen example because the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are pretty clear and can be described on a molecular level
@@user-py7hf9zg5d the point is missed by a mile, the objective is to illustrate the logical fallacy.
@@senseofmindshow if you are doing genetics post-2015, everyone considers polygenic scores nowadays.
About the genetics part, it's never enough to remember: "Correlation is different to causation", furthermore, some genetic traits have some social impact that may cause the result mentioned
You’re right. It’s a two way street
True. Like the gene for melanin, for instance. In the US at least, we can't sweep racism away under a veneer of scientific respectability.
I mean their method just completely disregards all neurodivergent children, that includes those with autism to dyslexia to sensory processing, they all have external factors that affect those children more so in their academic achievements, than typically developing children. Also the fact that a large majority of people in poverty tend to be neurodivergent too is a huge impactful factor they should REALLY take into account.
This is fascinating topic for me, but it seems there's a implicit bias for college education and degrees as the only marker for success.
Can the economy stop creating child poverty? That's the real question.
As with all innovations and data it can be a blessing and a curse. As a teacher I assume that all students have an innate intelligence of some variety and our job as parents and teachers is to cultivate that intelligence while strengthening their weaknesses. Having worked with gifted children I have observed children who are both delayed in some areas and advanced in others. I believe that using a genetic lens may likely serve to classify "academic achievement" while over looking many other adaptive traits which are needed to adapt to our changing environment. Academic achievement is much to narrow a focus to account for the traits needed to succeed as our planet changes. Thank you and please consider these observations accumulated over 50 years of teaching. Be well.
I have heard that a predisposition to alcoholism is in the genes. This predisposition could be inherited, even if neither of your parents actually became alcoholic. It seems it would be helpful if caregivers and guidance counselors could tailor their interventions with those with such a predisposition. But there are ethical and privacy concerns here as well. And it would be valuable to understand the interaction of genetic and social factors, not just in how people fall into alcoholoism, but also in the effectiveness of various intervention options in their getting out of it.
That’s a great point. It seems like genetics is going to have the effect of making medicine, including psychiatric medicine, much more personalized.
I certainly think genetics can be controversial. However, everyone should remember the complexity of genetics. There’s epigenetics -the influence of the environment on gene expression/supression- and the intricate relationship there’s between multiple genes and certain traits. Also, in the case of obesity at least, after three generations it becomes also a genetical problem.
I believe it just might be useful for tackling inequality. However, we should always bear in mind all these things and not (over)naturalizing inequality.
Genetics is especially controversial in the context of race/ethnicity for obvious reasons. I don't think the suggestion that intelligence is determined by genes in itself is that controversial, as long as it isn't accompanied by the notion of statistically significant differences between races.
Poverty can be reduced through policy, and educational opportunities can be improved. However, genetics confers a broad range of inequalities, and innate predispositions cannot be boosted.
Which is why the folks who don't want to spend money on social policy or public education tend to also support such deterministic theories. If you can dismiss all social inequality as the "fault in our genes", then there's no expectation that the 99% should share in the fruits of their labor.
@@mandisaw You are arguing against something that I did NOT write --- that I did not even imply. Go back to school to learn reading comprehension and logic. Those, like you, who resort to conjured-up universals, strawman arguments, and red herrings typically fail to convince educated others.
@@compassroses I added to your comment with a broader political/social context - the why, not merely the what. Your faulty assumption that I was (1) arguing against your point, and (2) lumping you in with those in favor of genetic-determinism, speaks more to your own failure to comprehend.
Or perhaps you actually do reflect the position I mentioned, and were just jumping ahead with a pre-emptive stock rebuttal?
Success is not a sprint or even a marathon but an intergenerational relay race
It's huge problem for developing country... In Indonesia, where student mostly live in village have obstacle to access formal school... Someday, they should swim on river because no bridge, and other cases... Affordability to internet access... Maybe I have to create research on Digital Poverty to respond huge problems 😁
The greatest education a child ever hears is the conversation one hears in their own home
This is such an amazing fact. I can’t believe how they said it seems to override the role of socioeconomic influence in certain cases!
@@senseofmindshow Part of our human arrogance that thinks science can do best. Kids need an intact, biological family, with biological mom and biological dad in monogamous marriage with generational support from grandparents and rooted community with other relatives and neighbors
@@Dimitris_Half Please clarify
These people completely miss the point, basing education on genetics leads to job market signals that would be based on genetics. For instance, if a company were to choose between two candidates one on the special genetic accommodation of the school and the other on the standard curriculum, who do you think the company would hire?
Yeah throw this in the eugenic trash fire.
@@candace1542 It's nuts that they're presenting this as though we haven't already explored this topic, to great detriment and tragedy.
@@mandisaw Too bad it is valid, PC notwithstanding.
Dr. Robert Sapolsky's videos on this topic are interesting.
Our teaching system is totally wrong.
Too much focus on academic achievement and little training on basic life skills, how to plan and manage projects, how to solve problems, knowledge on the rights and duties as a human in society and in nature, voluntary work. From my experience, most young people have IT skills but are very detached from normal life in society, in interaction with people from different age groups and origins. They tend to believe everything that is presented to them in social media without critical thinking.
@@sternamc919sterna3 agree! I wish I had been taught how to do my taxes, how to invest, how to prepare for a job interview, etc in high school. It seems ridiculous that we don’t do that.
@@senseofmindshow how to plan meals for the month and avoid waste 😉. Many "progressive" educators consider these as worthless skills and jobs. But no one is born with full knowledge, we have to learn all that and the best time to do it is when we are young, though we should keep learning new skills through life.
It’s great that biotech is being funded but no matter what science and tech is done and provided, I believe that taxing the rich, reallocating taxes, and cancelling student debt, along with making community college free and other systematic changes are important pieces of the puzzle.
I find the use of “graduating from college” and “receiving a PhD” as benchmarks for academic success highly problematic. These terms are thrown out as a given when in fact we need to create additional paths for life success including trade and vocational study.
More to the point, college graduation and graduate study are both far more influenced by socioeconomic factors than genetic ones. Her study would just identify the shared genetics of rich people. We've already been down this road before, and it never ends well.
the fact is there are too many people.
It seems odd to highlight the racist aspect on eugenics, when the classist aspect was just as, if not more, prominent and is more relevant to the discussion. That being said, I think burying our heads in the sand about genetic determinants of important socio-economic outcomes is both harmful and annoying. It's completely valid to say we shouldn't base social policy off genetics because it justifies inequality. What _isn't_ valid is to refuse to seriously acknowledge that strong genetic predeterminants may exist, just because people disagree with the spectre of eugenics.
There is a lot of motivated reasoning - people who don't like the sociological implications of genetics, and so insist it isn't a factor, despite the fact that relatively little research has been done and what has been done, as well as intuitive sense, supports a link.
"Poor kids are just as bright as white kids." -Joe Biden
You’re completely right. There’s an amazing display of mental gymnastics with people who want to pretend that the influence of genes is only from the neck down.
The education gap between rich and poor kids are everywhere not just about how much time their parents can be with them and teach them. But it's a great start
Dangerous path.
As a cognitive neuroscientist, this is outrageous. Get this pop Psychology out of here
To me, it's natural to say Kids from Poor background, face such circumstances Rich or Middle class kids never do. They think more times than an average kid to be positive about something as they surely feel insecure and scared.
“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids." -- Joe Biden, August 2019
😱 Am I the only one to see a problem in this quote？
Most part of this video making fool to peoples. Because major cause didn't raise in this video that responsible for poverty such as. What about the long discrimination on a certain community over a long time, govt and society policies that promote crony capitalism from ancient times that's not major factors.
Amazing video 👏 👏
Please more about that subject 🙏
This video was so disappointing. You put a scientist who is saying that 'genetics' can tell you who is most likely to go to college .... ignoring all the cultural and socioeconomic contributions to that outcome. Ignoring wealth, poverty, nutrition, language spoken at home, etc. Making any decision based solely on 'genes' - for something that is affected by so many variables - is outright irresponsible.
Then it completely glosses over our problematic history of using 'genetics' to guide our decisions regarding people... and they gave NO context with these vague mentions to explain exactly what the issue was..... and all the past atrocities that humans used 'science' to justify.
This was a horribly edited, horribly written, deceitful pseudo-essay which not-so-subtlety advocates for Eugenics.
I am actually subscribed to the Economist. If I continue to see videos like this, I will definitely unsubscribe.
its an ambitious effort and subjective to constant economies
And when genetics have been maxed out you'll then need the microchips and robotic augmentation...
Socioeconomic status is not as important as having conversations with a child for developing their mental and neurological capacities. That is incredibly powerful.
I must say, I think Harden is right to say that genetics influence which kids benefit most from this, so there is still going to be individual variation and I can imagine that some kids will just be unlucky in this regard.
However, if this idea holds up, it will completely change how we look at educational achievement. My guess is that socioeconomic status and adversity in genera will still matter, but we will see how incredibly powerful it is to engage in the most natural form of human education: conversation.
Ended up tapping the *dislike* button, this video needed more research
Shouldn't scientists figure out planned obsolescence in consumer products and address the illogic of land ownership? The land is millions of years old, why should some people pay others 5live on it?
Changing the name of the video would not change the fact that it's a boring video because you pulled it thin. The first few minute would have been enough
Need to try
I see how a girl asks a guy for his genetic profile on the second date to determine how successful he will be 🤔
This is terrifying. Dark as fk
I am watching from Kalam Valley.
I am watching from Thames Valley
Wow! Finally something sane from the Economist! Recognizing that IQ is linked to genetics, unbelievable that you finally said it.
Yep. It will be increasingly impossible for any serious observers to deny (or even ignore) the influence of genes on IQ.
@@senseofmindshow Considering the progress in genetics field, it was inevitable.
@@XOPOIIIO True!
@@Dimitris_Half Yes, that's right.
@@Dimitris_Half I completely agree. The Flynn effect is the best evidence for the environmental influences on IQ.
Poor kids need to earn more?
@@Dimitris_Half Well according to the title, science is trying to make poor people earn more.
@@Dimitris_Half It’s the title of this video that’s bizarre.
@@Dimitris_Half We’re going to reduce poverty by having children earn money? Never thought of child labor as solution to generational poverty.
lol
Keep the poor poor. Poor don’t need to earn ant more than they are paid. Making money is a skill. Social-wellfare is a socialist progressive idea to create an “ideal world” for all to live well. But from a rich persons perspective, why should the poor earn more? They will probably just consume more, ultimately funding the rich capitalist ventures.
End the "debts theft monetary system $" the world will be a better place.
Psychologist talk about dna and gene with out any valid research
Nonsense scientism, completely misses the point. Improve outcomes for poor children by reducing family poverty with economic policy, not with word-recording gadgets or genetic profiling. Put your essentialism away for just a minute, please. It's about political choices.
PS see Shadarra James' comment (she's in the video).
The rich all need to become volunteers, such that they actively participate in the lives of the poor. Rich families can pair up with poor families, and commit to helping the poor family in all ways. Until this happens, the rich will throw money at the problem, and never feel connected to those in need. Why volunteer to help someone less privileged than yourself, if the meaning of life is consumption and education, to achieve more consumption. This needs to happen across society, and maybe become compulsory, the way that academic achievements are compulsory for admission to a fancy college. The superiority complex of the rich and successful will subside, to be replaced by empathy and empowerment for all involved. Freedom to be selfish is not a virtue.
its ok as far as the science is concerned, but digging so deep into understanding this phenomena certain other problems can arise, which would be quite difficult to manage in the longer term. such kind of an effort can take another shape of racial discrimination. therefore the scientists should be very careful. one other point, instead investing so much on such minor issues, organizations should invest that how can we reduce injustice and social inequality in the global society. how can we create equality in the distribution of wealth???????
This reminds me of Freakonomics Ep 228
kids this days have peppa pig cocomelon and paw patrol and all so much advantage than the previous generations
People not interacting with their older relatives cannot see that life conditions have improved greatly in the last 100 years, and are improving, slowly for some people because of political and financial instability and war in many countries. You have never had in human history so many people in school and higher education, capable of reading and writing and with access to technology and healthcare. Hope that it will get better for future generations.
It is strange to talk about "breaking the class ceiling" as though class is something totally determined by how well educated someone is. The Economist really should know better. Class divisions are inherent to the way our capitalist economy functions. If everyone was well educated, their would still exist a need for wage workers, people with few assets would still be compelled to work for wages, and people with large assets would still make their wealth exponentially through the exploitation of wage workers. Education is only a solution at the individual level. It can not address the structural forces in society which cast some into the working class and others into the ruling class. I'm sure the very intelligent people at the Economist recognize this.
Eugenic sterilization is important until inbreeding occurs.
Does China have this issue? Do poor children find it difficult to achieve without additional government help?
Who is the Black woman speaking in the courtroom?
Please explain.
Hope the outcome from this genetic tech and theory is really a reverse of , 1997
If so,, they wouldn't be poor people today
One thing all rich and poor people have in common is they end up as dead consciousness therefore the point of existing is just to exist, last time I remember a clock never changes it always repeats and I bet my existence that the Universe is an infinite reproduction of itself and since I am the conscious present Universe then I always have and always will write this same exact present comment, forever repeats forever because 100% repeats 100%.
Better in Canada where poor rise successfully through classes
very interesting
Let's make earth a better place,
with the alternative system to monetary economy, which is named Resource Based Economy RBE!
Please learn more about RBE.
Thank you ❤️🗺️🖖🐇
because all immigrants who came to america were rich, wealthy, right? or 'which poor' are we speaking of here?...
Why do more Americans from Asian and African parentage graduate from university than their American born counterparts? This demographic is a disadvantaged group compared Caucasian Americans but they appear to do better than their black American counterparts. Thus can’t be down to genetics, it’s probably socio economic and socio cultural conditioning.
I never asked for this
Ban private school and follow more closely the system in Finland
And subject everyone to the failing public school system in the US? Best everyone be dumb instead of letting some the best education possible. right? Yes, its unequal. But whenever someone brings up vouchers to fix that it gets shot down by vested interests so ...
@@akashgarg9776 the US has many private institutions. Once there is a level playing field those in power and money will do their best to fix the system because now its their kids education that is at stake.
You're assuming that the system and not the students themselves are the cause. Finnish students would do well under any system, while some students will fail regardless of the system used.
@@S2Tubes give them all a level playing field then from which to launch their careers. Don't cut off some children's legs just because they come from poor areas or families.
@@Dimitris_Half they don't need the money, they need someone to care. If they banned them tomorrow you can bet their will be thousands of stressed professionals parents chasing after their local polititions to fix the local school. Private schools segregate children based upon wealth. That can't be healthy for society. The US spends most on healthcare but has among the worst outcomes of any developed nation. Throwing money at a problem is not a fix all. You say give them more money but some rich don't want to pay the taxes. Private education is an industry, not a service to society and its also a sink for money laundering in a few cases.
You know what would help poor kids? No minimum wage.
I mean sure IQ is linked to genetics but I don't think it linked to your ability to make money. Of course people with really low IQ unable to make any money but after that it's fair game.
Maybe poor families don’t emphasize showing respect to teachers, behaving well, having discipline to study and put a full priority on a child’s education.
I bet that’s part of it in many cases, but certainly not all.
Hard to tell, when the schools in poor districts are crumbling, have huge class sizes, and lack enrichment and extracurricular activities. Since the US ties school quality to property taxes, your access to education and adult earnings is dictated far more by the median household income in your zip code/county than your genetic cocktail.
Look, if you think certain race is better at "sports" than others and that is not racist, you need to admit some races are better at mental "sports" than others.
Hiltler is looking up smiling man😕Pseudo crapola
Kids and poverty is a big topic but it starts with fact WHY are you having kids if you can't take care of them and you are poor. It's just simply nonsense. The personal selfishness to have a child even if you are poor has to stop.
really？！
My daughter has friends living in two parents households. One of the girls quit school and the other is failing most of her classes.
Both girls have stay at mom's with a working dad. It appears the common denominator is genetic. The mom's of both girls are unambitious and happy being a stay at home mom. They are following in the footsteps of their parents, even though they have access to a higher education.
What more should tax payers be on the hook to pay for people who just don't give a dayum?
💧💧💧
Dont make this a problem in biology!
This is economic and social problem!
I can't watch this terrible video knowing the shady side of education.
If those rich kids actually read and were checked fairly they wouldnt be different!
0:14 Mmm Russia, nice
1:05 why does her son looks like a girl?
That technology won't help kids in poor class be the same level as those at the rich level due to the fact that the rich use time wisely and are action oriented than majority of society
Interesting, if you look at alot of famous British and to an extent European scientists, alot of them where the children of nobles and the children of people considered higher up in society.
I may disagree here, when you say a lot do you mean the majority? Which time are we actually talking about? 18th-19th century or turn of the century? Just interested what you actually mean.
Study link?
Its almost like richer people have better access to education and opportunities
@@SarcasticDespot but wouldn’t you say that this is only true when it comes to childhood education? After you’ve graduated isn’t it true that you are responsible for yourself? What I am referring to is that for a very low fee for example you get access to Harvard medical library. So what I am saying is, that though you may not be able to study medicine BUT you can always educate yourself.
@@tinakoernermashood6422 I'd say that's quite naive (no offence). You might feasibly have access i.e. there is no one that will deny you access. But that is not the same as it being accessible to people. Wealthy kids dont need to go out of their way to search for education, poor ones do. That is what inequality is. You might have the opportunity to roll the dice, but if the other person just gets more dice rolls. You will probably lose the game.
And the worst thing about it is people will use the example of people getting lucky and beating the system to keep the unlucky ones in the system.
Also even if someone is educates themselves, if there's a paywall in front of every job (degrees, certifications etc...). Social mobility will not be very high
It's amazing that you want to track what parents say to children, however you haven't gone after what they hear in rap music and movies....!!!! Get your act together Economist...!!!!!
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The natural inherent attitudes is what has to be over come,when the first Europeans went to Africa, they had STONE implements and basic huts,WE had METAL for centuries, HOW can you overcome their natural attitudes.
Ok 👌 pas je te oui bb bob à. Ok ok ok k ok k
Science is finite mode behaviour - personal relationships are of infinite cause.
Who cares.
Personally I find this video could have used a linguist instead of a psychologist. If more that half of the video was about language acquisition. A linguist would be better suited than a psychologist for this particular topic.
Plus, you are playing with fire since the language acquisition debate over how children acquire language was already won. It was between B.F. Skinner (psychologist) and Noan Chomsky (linguist). Most psychologist and linguist know Chomsky language theory is correct and this video is biased. Since it portrays it as if psychologist can explain everything away because of the use of behaviourist mentality. Not all language acquisition is based solely on behaviourism.
An additional criticism is about language acquisition, children learn most of there lexicon (vocabulary) at a very early age infant to early elementary school. Once a child reaches middle school there ability to fast map is reduced as age increases.
A solution to improve the video is to provide more information on linguistics accounts of language and not the other way around. Behaviourism and genetics is a interesting solution but I think a broader approach would be to include two approaches from two very different disciplines. Linguistics I feel would prefer to state the issue as not number of words heard since children already have a build in language learning module (Chomsky). Evidence being children from foreign parents who speak zero of the language are still able to acquire the language, depending on age. How I see, it is societal and more to due with a philosophical debate on lifestyle, beliefs, custom, knowledge, and Etc. Poor individuals tend to be less in-depth with the ruling classes particularities. As apposition to richer individuals who have spent their entire lives plus upbringing on culturing of social knowledge. Therefore, it is not a linguist solution, nor a psychologist solution, but a societal issue that revolves around social hierarchies.
+1-541-233-2092