> It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty.
Examples of genius that didn't thrive because of poverty? The example you gave is about kids learning to sell vegetables. Are their studies about geniuses that didn't achieve their best work because they were poor?
That's not a very good question -- how can we know someone is a "genius" unless they have the resources to thrive? We can debate on the meaning of genius, but regardless of how you view it, a person simply cannot reach their full potential if they have to constantly worry about feeding themselves or a family.
Before we can even identify someone as a genius, they have to have been successful in some way. For them to be successful, they have to have access to at least some basic resources (there are "rags to riches" stories, but I'm not sure it's even possible to argue that those are the norm). So how would you even begin answering your question? How do we identify someone as a genius even before they've actually succeeded at something? Isn't there some massive selection bias there?
Since the only difference between a wealthy person and a person raised in poverty is income/upbringing (poverty doesn't change your genes, does it?), I think it's a safe assumption that we're missing quite a few "geniuses" because of poverty.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just asking for examples that back his claim "It's unbelievable how much genius is wasted in poverty."
The statement he made is unnecessary to his overall point, which is that charity can help people. His claim about the "unbelievable" number of geniuses being squandered has no real basis in fact.
But aren't you ignoring a potential reason why it has no "basis in fact"? The reason why we can't find examples of "genius being wasted in poverty" is simple: how can we identify someone as a "genius" until they've actually produced something notable? How can someone with little to no resources produce something notable? It's possible, but the odds are skewed a lot.
The statement was very necessary. If we operate on the assumption that a person's ability is largely defined by their upbringing (and from what we understand so far in the social sciences, this is a pretty fair assumption to make!), it's essential to point out that poverty prevents people from achieving their full potential, and the number of people it affects is in the billions.
Just because it can't be accurately measured doesn't automatically make the point invalid: if you're trying to argue that the population of (over a billion!) people without ready access to food or clean water doesn't contain the same number of potential geniuses as our population, then you have the burden of proof because every bit of understanding we have about nature vs. nurture indicates that improving a person's upbringing allows them to accomplish more.
In other words, he doesn't have to prove with hard statistics that poverty prevents genius from emerging, because our existing knowledge of human behavior and development clearly demonstrates this without having to answer: "exactly how many geniuses were lost?"
Genius manifests itself in many ways. It's foolish to think that simply by living in poverty, genius can be stopped. If you raise the living standards everywhere, the lowest living standard becomes the new poverty. Are we then to say that genius is being squelched in those new areas?
> The reason why we can't find examples of "genius being wasted in poverty" is simple: how can we identify someone as a "genius" until they've actually produced something notable?
Poverty does not prevent the identification of. I've lived in a poor community. Yet I've seen genius in people who can fix vehicles, in people who can track animals to hunt, or in just retelling amazing stories. Those people are geniuses. Just because they don't invent some new-fangled iBullshit, or get on the NYT best seller list, does not diminish their genius. It does not mean that it did not exist. And it does not mean that a cash infusion would have made them any "more" of a genius. Open your eyes. Geniuses are not resources to be exploited by people who want to make a good return on an investment.
Ah. I see where the disagreement lies. Your position is that they're still geniuses even if they "only" figure out how to fix cars on their own. I agree, they're still geniuses, but I would also agree that it is a waste.
If the genius had lived outside poverty, they might be inventing nanotech or getting us into space or performing on Broadway.
The opportunity of "genius" is to make an impact on the world, and that is why genius is wasted in poverty.
Examples of genius that didn't thrive because of poverty? The example you gave is about kids learning to sell vegetables. Are their studies about geniuses that didn't achieve their best work because they were poor?