[HN Gopher] Best predictor of professional success isn't cogniti...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Best predictor of professional success isn't cognitive performance
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2023-04-16 19:34 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (english.elpais.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (english.elpais.com)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | lonelyhacker0x wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | pipes wrote:
       | Or successful patents often have successful kids?
        
         | tough wrote:
         | Patently true
        
       | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
       | "it's whether your parents have money"
        
         | jl2718 wrote:
         | There is one sentence about this in the article, stated without
         | support, possibly as a joke. The rest of the article is about
         | replication failure in social science studies.
        
           | Paul-Craft wrote:
           | It's a quotation from a researcher who's being interviewed
           | for a popular news article. Be reasonable. What do you
           | expect?
        
       | mrleinad wrote:
       | Title shouldn't have been changed to be so clickbaity.
       | 
       | Real title is: "Daniel Sanabria, psychologist: 'The best
       | predictor of professional success isn't cognitive performance,
       | it's whether your parents have money'"
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | HN doesn't allow titles that long. How would you have reduced
         | that to 80 characters?
        
           | toomuchtodo wrote:
           | "Best predictor of professional success is family wealth."
           | 
           | Related:
           | 
           | https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-
           | stu...
           | 
           | https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16334883
        
         | Bukhmanizer wrote:
         | The original title is also incredibly clickbaity and has little
         | to do with the actual article.
        
       | fwungy wrote:
       | It's not just having money, it's keeping it. Plenty if stories if
       | lottery winners being back where they started soon enough. Plenty
       | of poor athletes and musicians too who once had it.
       | 
       | It takes intelligence and discipline to build wealth and if your
       | parents have it they may pass that on to you. Sometimes that
       | doesn't make you wealthy but they are still good things to
       | inherit from your parents.
        
       | filoleg wrote:
       | > "We're not talking about mental health," Sanabria clarifies.
       | "That's a different subject."
       | 
       | This quote was the explanation from the article for why they
       | dismissed physical exercise as a valid way of improving one's
       | cognitive performance. Because it only directly improves mental
       | health and not your cognitive performance.
       | 
       | That is a rather strange take. Sure, yeah, if we remove the one
       | thing (mental health) that arguably nets the most improvement to
       | your own life that affects every single area of it, including how
       | others perceive you, then yeah, sure, we can dismiss exercise.
       | Not sure why one would want to do that though, since their
       | "that's a different subject" take doesn't sound that convincing,
       | unless they want to argue that being mentally healthy doesn't
       | contribute to cognitive performance (which imo would contribute
       | to being more successful in a professional environment).
        
       | chmod600 wrote:
       | No surprise. We over-worship smartness and education. Doing,
       | trying, and attitude are probably much more important beyond
       | basic intelligence.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-04-16 23:01 UTC)