Hacker News Reader

You may want to check the research on this. The book escapes me, but I remember there being mounting research that says in general, long term stressors make you weaker, not stronger.

_What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Weaker_

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201008/...

"Developmental research has shown convincingly that traumatized children are more, not less, likely to be traumatized again. Kids who grow up in a tough neighborhood become weaker, not stronger. They are more, not less likely to struggle in the world."

You're probably successful in spite of, not because of, the circumstances of your upbringing.

On the other hand suffering builds resilience and character.

https://ptgi.uncc.edu/files/2015/01/Positive-outcomes-follow...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023034961045755602...

https://webfiles.uci.edu/rsilver/Seery,%20Holman,%20&%20Silv...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201111...

It doesn't have to be monotonic...

Perhaps true - but the advantages/opportunities associated with higher wealth/social status are significantly more likely to balance out sub-optimal personal development.

It's hardly a new idea, but one of the greatest advantages of wealth is the opportunity to take risks without feeling the true punishment of hard failure (regardless of whether those are professional or personal).

High water makes navigating the boulders a lot easier, so even if we assume that rich kids are less prepared to face challenges in life - on balance - that simply doesn't matter as much.

> is the opportunity to take risks without feeling the true punishment of hard failure

Then it is not true a risk. I can see how this could lead to less effort.

> Then it is not true a risk.

It doesn't feel like it when you're taking the risk. The older I get, the luckier I realize I am to have grown up in such a safe environment, to have gone to good public schools, and to live in such a developed society

It's risk of a person's time, which is obviously a finite resource for each of us.

Those with less privilege typically need to spend that time addressing immediate financial imperatives rather than focusing on delayed financial or academic rewards.

Doesn't that still make it a lower risk since for the poorer person, there is less available time (assuming priority is giving to addressing the financial situation & providing basic needs) ?

Sounds like the typical case of people who after having "made it" try to make it all about character and personal effort, ignoring the systemic issues poor people have to overcome that rich don't which give them a big advantage.

In other words, ignoring that while some poor kids may win in "hard mode" doesn't change the fact that rich kids play life in "easy mode", and as such, it's much easier for them to win, and much more of them will win, any merit and hard work put into it being equal.

It's like showing some succesful despite the odds black man in 1960 to show that "see, Jim Crow and racism doesn't matter, it's all a matter of will".

And it's almost completely survivorship bias.

The hundreds of thousands of people who did not get stronger through their struggles are not represented, because they are not here to present themselves.

The actual stats are pretty clear in that richer kids do better and are happier as adults than poor kids.

Hmmm... Funny you mention that. I'm better off, happier and much more appreciative of life the than majority the "rich" kids I've run across as grown ups- and I earn more, too. I wouldn't consider the subset of rich kids who inherited wealth to be successful at all, they're riding on their parent's coat-tails and have done nothing for themselves. In the end I'm far tougher, adaptive, creative, and decisive that those who grew up on easy street- so while I was brought up in poverty I'm a much better off and equipped for real life.

There is a silver lining to humble roots. Shame on those who diminish all things other than wealth.

> I feel like poor kids actually have an advantage because they have a natural instinct to try harder to survive.

Anecdotal evidence

Not to take away from your achievement BUT you are sadly the exception. You are not giving yourself enough credit.

I have adopted and fostered children from abusive impoverished lives. They are great and are in college but they still struggle to achieve it in a timely manner. They also struggle with grades though they actually are above average in intelligence.

PS Top .1 % income children are also impacted negatively but they have an easier fall back (Grow up and financial means to give themselves unlimited supply of alcohol and drugs) Where I grew up these rich kids were having 3rd world diseases like scurvy since they just ate what they wanted.

Anecdotal but it's the same for me here, I grew up in the UK to a single mother who didn't work.

I worry any children I have will be spoiled (because I'll instinctively spoil them) and wont have the drive I do.

I think you've created a false contradiction here.

The study is about differences in brain shape and brain capability that come from poverty.

You're worried about differences in character that come from how you raise kids.

It's true that some rich parents spoil their kids. But I know plenty of people from affluent backgrounds that are just as scrappy under pressure because they've been raised well.

So as you raise kids, you could try to generate the experiences of being poor. E.g., you could make a checklist out of this article and its excellent comments:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

Or you could instead try to teach them your values through experience.

Reminds me of this TED Talk.

Given the choice between a job candidate with a perfect resume and one who has fought through difficulty, human resources executive Regina Hartley always gives the "Scrapper" a chance. As someone who grew up with adversity, Hartley knows that those who flourish in the darkest of spaces are empowered with the grit to persist in an ever-changing workplace. "Choose the underestimated contender, whose secret weapons are passion and purpose," she says. "Hire the Scrapper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQVEvkYuvWk

What impresses me is that you described a good ability to deal with failure, and called it "less able to deal with failure". Because if you can ignore setbacks and achieve what you want, such that it's a "real advantage" where "the rich stay rich", that's a good quality to have.

Imagine if you said that at a job interview. "What's your greatest weakness?" "I think I can achieve great things (or make money, or whatever) and I don't let failure stop me." That's not a weakness.

Not to dismiss your experience, but I can see in my friend's children how important is your background.

I would bet (and is only a personal impression, I can't back it with data) that the effect shows in more than one generation.

If you compare parents that are more or less of the same socio-economic status now (because good public education, luck, talent, whatever), the parents that come from affluent households, see as normal that a children should have a foreign nanny, music formation, travel a lot.. this kind of things.

The parents that never had that in their childhood simply don't know how to do that because they didn't experiment that themselves. Of course they try, but it's obvious that it's not the same. Maybe, with luck, their grandchildren will be there.

I am talking about professional workers, not spoiled children of millionaires. I suppose that is totally other situation.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://img.washingtonp...

It appears you're a stones throw from saying any poor who don't go on to become successful are just lazy and unmotivated.

I've been thinking about this recently and these are my thoughts exactly. It leads to an interesting question. Do I have a competitive advantage as a startup founder growing up poor? Higher stress resistance (can chew a lot), no problem with low personal burn rate, better problem solving (no money for iPod from parents, run little business to get the cash)

>Do I have a competitive advantage as a startup founder growing up poor?

No, it's all offset from not having great connections with the right rich people, not having personal safety net and deposits to be able to work for long in some prototype, etc, things much more important.

It might work out for you, but in general there's not much for poor startup founders over rich ones.

I talking about growing up poor and then working in tech - similar to parent comment.

Technology is reducing the cost of entry for increasing number of industries. YC and other communities are providing network. Working for a few years you can save up a lot.

I'm not sure about growing up poor, but I'm pretty sure I've heard something about how a disproportional number of founders come from dysfunctional families. One even claimed that doing a startup felt natural to him, as the chaos of startup life was more similar to his upbringing. Apparently a regular job's stability made him uneasy.

> Unlike the overall negative tone of this study, I feel like poor kids actually have an advantage because they have a natural instinct to try harder to survive.

Natural ?

Yeah, who cares about the small brained poor kids as long as there are some big brained poor kids that make it. /s

I agree. I grew up in similar circumstances and was raised on fried bread and second hand clothes. Now, I'm doing better than most of my peers. The drive to maximize situations balanced with being grateful for them never leaves. I see it as a good thing.

I also wonder if the rich are also programmed to empathize with others less.