I recently got an article from our very own Blegoo, who wanted to see his thoughts published and critiqued around here. It required serious formatting, but I thought it’s a free service I can provide to the second highest commenter (in terms of quantity) on this blog. My comments will be highlighted inline and concentrated at the end. 

Soo, I'll try to continue this sorry post - unfinished!

Just wanna kill this poor puppy, iz all.

Bear with me, pleaz, beachiz...

First of all... is in VERY poor taste to introduce animated gifs in a "serious" post - dealing with "sense of existence" and other highbrow issues.

It's okay for certain tumblr blogs... but here?

I used an imgur gif above – hope you like it.

"Debate worth having"?

Considering the arguments advanced by our genial host - mr.Zamo, zat iz... this sounds like a poor joke.

Hehe.. Nice segway (or is it segue?) :LOL:

Poor people will ALWAYS vote their own interest - as "explained" to them by various interested parties - as in "political" parties.

It's not important whether it's "their" interest, or the party's.

This is universal truth, regardless of country or nation.

The party dispenses the truth, the mob follows.

It happened in the past, it's happening now, it will happen again.

So.. Liked the GIF?

Most people are poor because of circumstances - pontificate ZamodotCa.

This is a false assumption, raised to a level of law.

Demonstrably false.

Pan-aici, zdrobitor de persuasiv.

• The poor are poor because they are in possession of low IQ.

How do you define it and how do you measure it? Are you aware of the entire hoopla surrounding it and how controversial its measurement and very definition are?

There is no escape from that. Not their fault, sure... but a fact. A reality. Sure, there are many in India who are poor. There was also Srinivasa Ramanujan.

Sure, there are plenty of poor people in USA.

There's also Thomas Sowell.

Plenty of examples all around - mostly in America. Plenty of "rags to riches" - starting with John Davison Rockefeller, Sr. and ending with Steve Jobs.

Both started being poor, born in poor/precarious families.

What do they have in common? Intelligence and ability to use it.

Possibly. But they were also undeniably lucky. For whatever way you define IQ, there are people who have at least as much as they did and didn’t get so rich. How do you compare the wealth of Becali (Donald Trump) vs that of Patapievici (or Noam Chomsky) and their respective IQs?

Being born with a high IQ is a sure path to exit poorliness.

I assume that by “poorliness” you mean “poverty” – poorliness is what your Indian friend got toward the end of his life.

There's simply NO circumstance you can blame for being poor.

Except anecdotal arguments - but that's what is advanced as argument in discussion on opencube.

Sure there is. But to get to that part first you need to convince me that IQ and success or wealth are in direct proportionality and you haven’t done so.

• Yeah, the argument of "It's important who your parents are for your success".

Last Sultan of Turkey would smile, as would Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov.

Your examples are only marginally better than what you call “anecdotal arguments” because they are supposedly better known by most people; still, they don’t do much in advancing your thesis.

How did the kids performed?

I can offer examples from business/finance/cultural fields - but is it necessary?

A common thread: high IQ.

Luck / serendipity seems to be more of a determinant in your examples.

That's enough, I think, about the connection between intelligence and success in life/making money/escape poorliness.

Now... we get to the meat of the frickin' post - unfinished.

In my comments, I advanced the idea that it's not worth exploring that particular site, or comments thereof.

I still stand by this theory.

I agree with this statement, but I might still do it later.

• The main writer and most commentators belong to a narrow profession - namely "IT workers".

• While a recognizable and respectable occupation, it's hardly a field where you can advance philosophical theories.

• 101% of all comments and post are anecdotic - that is - based on what someone encountered in his/her life. Hardly something you can base you general theory of big bang... or should I say big-gang

• 99% of anything published there is based on personal experiences – as short/poor/narrow as they can be.

• 99,9% of opinions belong to the category of “lemme tell ya” or “you stupid, i’ll tell ya” – therefore – totally useless.

• Basically, with a little effort, you can pick up more info about life in “diaspora” on various forums.

• If you are a student of “Art of Mioritic Conversation” – such as I am, it’s an interesting site to pick up trends. If you’re looking for real useful info... move on.

Overall... it’s similar to trying to get an idea what Romania is all about by reading some Noica writings.

A very flattering comparison for the departed Mr Noica. : – )

Good luck, and don’t forget to hold to your wallet while in Romania.

Or among various Romanians.

* * *

zacomments

In short, you wanted my comments, so here they are.

1. You are not properly defining the notions you are using. I am presuming you mean to say that
   1. Poverty is due to low IQ [a number that supposedly measures an inheritable ability to comprehend and use logic (my presumption, since you don’t define it)].
   2. You criticize that blog for being a bit obtuse in both its narrative and the level of comments, but fall into a similar trap in your little ditty above.
2. This is a debate worth having, but I find it more useful when it takes place between those who have their minds open in a similar direction (hierarchists with hierarchists, egalitarians with egalitarians, collectivists with collectivists); otherwise, it usually devolves into a dialogue of the deaf, with each party bringing arguments that don’t do much for their opponent. (LE: Obviously, merely belonging to the same group of “motivationism” does not imply having identical ideas.) See this quote on bias and its “mother essay”.
3. When you have some kind of knowledge of your interlocutor, you might actually anticipate their bias and “arguments” in this debate. That makes it a bit boring, especially when they are different then yours. By the definition above, you are (or play the role of) a hierarchist and I’m more (or..) of an egalitarian.

In Sources, I added Wikipedia links for some of your examples, followed by a few articles that may be enlightening for arguments from the other side of the barricade (hover with your mouse, you don’t need to click them).

I (we) invite anyone interested to butt in and throw their comments in the mud pit. Just remember that Blegoo is a gentle man (though, at a first look, he does not seem to be either), which may not leave a lot of room for manoeuvre.

LE: Here's why I'm not crazy about online debates: in “you think wrongly” I explain why certain debates don't get anywhere, in “why the bear has no tail” I try to explain to a “hierarchist” that his homophobia has no logical basis, while in Like a Dacian I describe the only way I engage in online debates. I have briefly commented on this one solely as a courtesy to a commenter.

I am willing, as a courtesy to Blegoo, to moderate such a debate based on the rules explained here or by Economist rules, but I’m not terribly excited to participate.

LE: I should also mention that the gif animation above is also indicative of a few more philosophical themes. See Nietzsche and Eternal return.

Sources / More info: gifs, wiki-sri, wiki-sowell, intsq-poverty, ec-lottery, ec-massIQ, ec-poverty, ec-ineq, ec-topicP, [Corcoran], Ideology, wiki-outline, wiki-IQ, wiki-dea, wiki-flynn, bigelow, bell-curve (new), usa, children, [nations], sociology&Ed (new)