Do poor choices = "disadvantages"?

[redhotrebel]

I was debating the validity of poor choices equaling a “disadvantage” when it was pointed out that the conversation had veered drastically from the intended topic (I blame Musashi for bringing up his pseudo-friend ) . I agree, however, I believe that this topic has merit and I would like to “hash it out” in a proper thread. I copied and pasted the last portion of the topic but you can view the aforementioned posts here: http://forum.tti-vos.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4665

Do people really have an advantage vs disadvantage that has a meaningful impact on their lives that was not a direct result of personal choices? (Please spare me the red herring of physically or mentally disabled persons).

You make it sound like they all have a choice. In many cases people are too busy making a living to actually find the time to improve their lives.

Work, raising children can sometimes occupy their lives almost 100% and there is little opportunity for them to advance.

I agree, in many cases it is people who could improve their lot but chose not to (I have a daughter like this, but even she has a somewhat valid excuse) but in other cases there is no choice.

edited out unnecessary snarky comment

It is a persons choice or a series of bad choices on their part that lead them to the situation they are in. Excuses on their part or pardons from society do not improve the status of a person. There is ample opportunity for people who are ambitious. Night school, online classes or even taking one class a semester. Goals will take longer to reach but it's not unattainable. Using children (which btw was a persons choice to have) as scapegoats for a persons laziness is abhorrent. Forcing society to pay monetarily or by guilt because someone was a complete idiot is ethically (thus logically) erroneous. The laziness of most "poor" people isn't defined solely on their willingness to preform manual labor, it is their unwillingness to use their mind.
*Edited out paragraph*
There are always choices. Special pleading and emotional appeals should not go unchecked. Bad things happen to all of us, get over it.

(Side note: I did a thread search for relevant topic and could not find one- Please let me know of such a thread exists as to reduce duplicated topics. Thanks)

[musashi]

Do people really have an advantage vs disadvantage that has a meaningful impact on their lives that was not a direct result of personal choices? (Please spare me the red herring of physically or mentally disabled persons).

By and far I do believe that RL financial success depends on a vast web of choices.

But I also believe that people in general bring a wide range of talents and abilities into the game. It simplifies the discussion to do away with the least capable people as irrelevant - but they aren’t. In fact the existence of people with limited ability to choose and compete illustrates the extreme of a continuum. But I can leave them out and consider the middle and the upper extreme.

There are instruments for measuring a person’s cognitive and physical abilities. And it is possible to chart a histogram of population performance using these instruments. The results indicate that some people have greater aptitude than others. So just as we have people with limitation, there are people with superior capabilities. So yes I think some people do have a natural advantage, over the average person.

I like to tell my Karate students, “Martial arts will not make you into a Super Hero. But through Martial Arts you can become a better fighter than you were before you started practicing.” The practice builds upon the inherent capabilities of the student to the degree he or she chooses.

[redhotrebel]

There are instruments for measuring a person’s cognitive and physical abilities. And it is possible to chart a histogram of population performance using these instruments. The results indicate that some people have greater aptitude than others. So just as we have people with limitation, there are people with superior capabilities. So yes I think some people do have a natural advantage, over the average person.

While I agree that some people do have a natural advantage (intellect) or a better start in life (i.e. children raised by objectivist/ rational parents) it does not equal a “disadvantage” for others. A person just has to be willing to work harder. A RL example: My husband is waaaay smarter than I am (just don't tell him that! ) Through school he never opened a book once. I do not exaggerate that. I on the other hand I am going through the same medical program he went through and I have to hit the books at least 20 hours a week to "keep up". My drive to succeed is based on my willingness to work 200% harder than he had to. I could just go work at McDonald's but my "disadvantage" would be brought on by my choice to not use my mind. I could use a hundred different excuses: It’s easier for other people or it’s harder for me. It’s not fair that it was easier for him etc... However, at the end of the day I am responsible for my own success or failure.

Another example would be me vs. a super model. Is it a “disadvantage” for me to not be as attractive as Heidi Klum? Should she be forced to make herself less attractive so that we can have the same advantages? IMO People that claim to have some sort of “disadvantage” do not want to work harder, or do something else they want a scapegoat. A person with 6 kids doesn’t want to take responsibility for the choices they made or work harder they want to use it as an excuse for their “lot in life”.

I like to tell my Karate students, “Martial arts will not make you into a Super Hero. But through Martial Arts you can become a better fighter than you were before you started practicing.” The practice builds upon the inherent capabilities of the student to the degree he or she chooses.

I agree completely with your last sentence. He/she “chooses” is the key term here. No, not every student will become Bruce Lee. Yes, maybe one student with the physical and mental endurance can be. But if they are all lazy and expect you to wave a magic wand to make them better without any effort on their part that would be delusional. I would like to make a cognitive leap here and go so far as to say that most people use “disadvantage” as an excuse rather than motivation to improve. They do not want to improve they want everyone who is “better than them” to lower their standards/intellect so that they can make everyone equally inferior thus elevating their mediocre status.

[TRHaz]

Is it a “disadvantage” for me to not be as attractive as Heidi Klum?

Yes I agree Heidi Klum is more attractive than you.

http://www.freakingnews.com/Partial-Fac ... 1777-0.asp

[redhotrebel]

Is it a “disadvantage” for me to not be as attractive as Heidi Klum?

Yes I agree Heidi Klum is more attractive than you.

Damn- I guess I did set myself up for that one!

[musashi]

But if they are all lazy and expect you to wave a magic wand to make them better without any effort on their part that would be delusional.

This simply is not true. Some people can skate by with little or no effort. You gave us two examples in your earlier post: your husband (limited effort) and Hedi Klum (presumably no effort).

We have large group of “normal” people that have to work very hard and make fortuitous choices to change their stars. We also have two roots to this distribution one group that can do all the right things and still not get very far, and a second that doesn’t have to work that hard if at all.

The way the question is phrased “Do poor choices = disadvantage?” seems to frame success fully in the 100% nurture camp. To me success would be either Nature or for most of us Nature & Nurture. One thing that supports your 100% nurture position is that we have very limited capacity (right now) to change our physical & mental aptitude. Hard work & fortuitous choices are tested and proven paths to success for now.

But let me ask you Red Hot Rebel, if there was a pill… A pill that you could take one time with no other effect but to give you the same mental capacities as your husband… Would you take it?

I would restate the question for the Hedi Klum pill, but I already know you’d knock a door down to take that one.

[redhotrebel]

But if they are all lazy and expect you to wave a magic wand to make them better without any effort on their part that would be delusional.

This simply is not true. Some people can skate by with little or no effort. You gave us two examples in your earlier post: your husband (limited effort) and Hedi Klum (presumably no effort).

We have large group of “normal” people that have to work very hard and make fortuitous choices to change their stars. We also have two roots to this distribution one group that can do all the right things and still not get very far, and a second that doesn’t have to work that hard if at all.

The way the question is phrased “Do poor choices = disadvantage?” seems to frame success fully in the 100% nurture camp. To me success would be either Nature or for most of us Nature & Nurture. One thing that supports your 100% nurture position is that we have very limited capacity (right now) to change our physical & mental aptitude. Hard work & fortuitous choices are tested and proven paths to success for now.

IMO "growing up" is realizing that we are not all equal (something society would like us to disbelieve). Those are not disadvantages. That is a normal part of life. Let's give "grown ups" a subjective age of 18. When you turn 18 you are no longer defined by what your parents did, your teachers told you and you are in charge of the choices you make from that point on. I don't think I stated my question well so let me clarify. If I realize that I will never be as smart or successful as "Mr. CEO" I have choices: do I try anyways to succeed within my abilities, do I give up and make excuses as to why I cannot be as smart or successful etc... I guess in esscence my point is: is it societies fault person(s) are at a disadvantage or was it a series of bad choices/ unwillingness on a persons part to think that created the supposed deprivations. We are not living in the dark-ages of the 1980's. There is ample resources for furthering education, finding better employment, and seeking metal health (if a person is using the "bad childhood" excuse). Nature is what drives us to succeed: If I may stray and quote Ayn Rand "Virtue of Selfishness" page 24: "That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choices, but not free to succeed with it."

But let me ask you Red Hot Rebel, if there was a pill… A pill that you could take one time with no other effect but to give you the same mental capacities as your husband… Would you take it?

Yes! I would in a heartbeat! That bastard knows everything! Ugh, it's so infuriating! We finally had to agree that "He knows everything and I'm always right".

I would restate the question for the Hedi Klum pill, but I already know you’d knock a door down to take that one.

This is the best statement ever! I about died laughing!! You took a leap into a possible pool of sharks saying that to a girl! Very ballsy you get two gold stars and a brownie point!

[Torrstar]

Nm, I don't belong in the Deep Thought forums.

[redhotrebel]

Nm, I don't belong in the Deep Thought forums.

No one does... it's a dark cavern of doom...

[musashi]

is it societies fault person(s) are at a disadvantage or was it a series of bad choices/ unwillingness on a persons part

This question is much easier for me to think about - no it is not society’s fault or responsibility that any single person has limitation or makes poor choices.

But that does not prevent these people from having a negative impact on society.

[redhotrebel]

is it societies fault person(s) are at a disadvantage or was it a series of bad choices/ unwillingness on a persons part

This question is much easier for me to think about - no it is not society’s fault or responsibility that any single person has limitation or makes poor choices.

But that does not prevent these people from having a negative impact on society.

Agreed! (finally )

[Qin Mei]

Let's mix things up! I am the living example of the nature vs nurture discussion, so let me tell you some things about my life, and the conclusions I've drawn.

Both of my parents have high IQs, and both brought a score of mental problems with them into their relationship. As one of the fruits of their union, I am smarter naturally than an estimated 99.993% of humanity. Because my parents themselves were damaged, I was nurtured in an environment of guilt (Roman Catholicism) and abuse. Being physically and verbally abused left me with a severe disadvantage. I had not learned to develop the skills necessary to succeed; I had only learned to live bitterly and ironically. <---Disadvantage as a result of choices of others (parents).

Instead of trying to pursue opportunity and self-improvement, my nurturing led me toward depression, substance abuse, self-loathing and pity. I learned about Objectivism in high school and realized that I needed to stand up and fight for myself, but even knowing the correct path I felt unable to tread upon it. All my life up to that point I had been forced down and down again, and I had no idea how to stand up. Instead of succeeding for myself, I learned to mock the rich and capable with my success. <---Disadvantage (my choice, though I did not see it at the time)

Fast forward to a year ago, and I had followed the path set in front of me to its natural conclusion; alcoholism, severe depression, and alienation from all the positive influences in my life. Here comes the conscious choice! Once I had hit rock bottom, something in me snapped, and I knew I had to change or die. A friend, years ago, had told me that she wished I could hit rock bottom because once I got down that far I would realize that I never wanted to be there again. I guess my bottom is a bit further down than others, but I finally found it. I hated being there.

I decided to ask myself what I wanted out of life. Once I had the answer, I asked myself how I was going to get there. I got up the courage to go back to school, part time at first and then full time. I chose not to drink alcohol. I chose to pursue opportunities because I wanted to. Now, here I am, 4.0 GPA and number one in every single one of my classes, and I have Finally learned to apply myself and work hard. <---Advantage as a result of Conscious Choice!!!

Okay, here's what I've learned:

Natural ability doesn't guarantee success.

An enormous disadvantage can be overcome with enough will, but in some cases (mine) it can take a years of searching to find the will.

An enormous advantage can be nullified by enough negative influence (up to a point).

Willpower must be constantly maintained by the person trying to succeed.

In my case, I had a natural advantage and a nurtured disadvantage. For years, the nurturing won out, fed in large part by my natural ability. Why try if everything comes easily anyway? Why be the best if you're competing against idiots? Why live if everyone dies in the end anyhow? Eventually I learned that it didn't matter. I'm not competing against them, I'm competing against myself. Once I realized I was my most powerful opponent, I was able to set aside the guilt and anger and move on.

Yes, I think bad choices do represent a tangible disadvantage. For some people, a few bad choices leave them with no other obvious choices, and they waste away. For others, the disadvantages are just fuel to succeed and become great. In either case, I don't think it's correct to downplay the importance of a disadvantage.

That's my two cents.

Qin Mei out.

[Qin Mei]

Yeah...rebel's gonna kill me for the self-pity play, but it was for a purpose. Bottom line: you can cry all you like about your past, but that will only buy you death. We all have to choose, and we all must confront our pasts. My point is that we can't belittle those pasts or we run the risk of losing the importance of the lesson. Find rock bottom, know rock bottom, stare it in the eye and never go back there again. That's what I really meant in my post.

Qin

[reteo]

The problem with saying "Advantaged" or "Disadvantaged" regarding a person is that the advantage or disadvantage is determined by several things, including what they do, what they want, and how they are going about using the first and seeking the second.

Some of the most common wishes involve money, land, human interaction, knowledge, power, influence, and personal attributes. These are some pretty common goals that people seek out, although not the only ones, and rarely all at once; in fact, how these are prioritized determines how advantaged or disadvantaged one is.

If one is into voluntary simplicity, then wealth is not as important as self-sufficiency. If one is into knowledge, they will think nothing of draining their wealth into books and/or other sources of information. When one wants nothing but money, then they will seek that out to the exception of other goals. Each will see the other two as disadvantaged, because they will see that the other won't have what they see as the most important.

Of course, people are nowhere near as one-dimensional as the above indicates, but this just means that the mix gets more complicated, and where one would see disadvantaged, another would see as exalted. It all depends on what one wants and intends.